Kimmi

Shuddering is a bad thing, but as I said earlier, you are making a bigger deal out of it than it is when I say that I shudder at the thought of a long term contract. It was a figure of speech to state my general disapproval of big contracts. And if we're in last place in a few years, and there are other reasons for that besides Price, perhaps some of those reasons could have been corrected if money were not tied up in Price's contract.

Or it could be that he just wants to take some time to spend with his family, while the opportunity has presented itself. Maybe he just needs a break. Maybe he has another job lined up (in baseball or not) that we don't know about. The idea that he is a fool for not immediately jumping into another GM job has no merit.

There could be any number of reasons why he isn't pursuing a GM job, none of which mean he's a fool.

No worries Bellhorn. I get your point, and I'm pretty sure a700 gets it also. As I've said before, he just likes to argue for the sake of arguing, which is fine by me.

I think you are way overanalyzing this and making a bigger deal out of it than it is. No one is losing sleep over the Red Sox' finances. However, we, as fans, do know that the Sox have a limit as to how much they will spend on payroll, and history has taught us how big contracts can come back to haunt the team. If you don't see anything wrong with handing out huge contracts to players that you feel are worth it, then that's good for you. But, should the product the FO puts on the field in 5 years be terrible because the Sox are dealing with the albatross contract of an underperforming player, then you really have no right to complain about the terrible product. You can say all you want that a team with the Sox' resources should be able to overcome this bad contract, but it is a fact that overcoming that dead money is not always possible when working on a limited budget.

I read a comment today that it's not just the guys at BA and other prospect ranking sites who are high on the Sox farm system, but that other team's GMs gush when they talk about the Sox farm system. Apparently, there is a lot to be interested in beyond Betts, Bogaerts, and Swihart. While I'm on the topic of our farm system, to think that the Sox have recently graduated the above three, along with ERod, JBJ, and Vazquez, and are still regarded as having a very deep farm says a lot about what a great job Cherington did with it. As far as whether Beane was fleeced in the Donaldson trade or not, I'm not going to get into a debate about it. Either way, that trade makes my point that the Sox won't necessarily have to give up one of those three players to get back a #1 pitcher.

So, that is two GM jobs that Cherington could likely have had, Mariners and Phillies, if he were interested. Just sayin'.

There are all kinds of possibilities for a trade that do not necessarily involve one of those three. Maybe the Sox do look for a pitcher going into the last year of his contract, then try to extend him, much like they did with Porcello. Maybe there is a team trying to unload a contract like Papelbon's and would be willing to take less in prospects if the Sox take the "throw in" player, like they did with Beckett/Lowell. Maybe some team is looking for a DH and would want Hanley as part of a deal, if the Sox ate most of the contract. Maybe a team is in complete rebuild and would rather have prospects 1-2 years away rather than MLB ready players. Look at what the Jays gave up for Donaldson. While I don't agree that Beane was fleeced in that deal, the Jays did not have to give up as much as most thought it would take to get Donaldson. I'm not expecting to get a player for nothing. It will cost the Sox one way or another to get a top starting pitcher. I just think there are ways that it can be done that don't involve Betts or Bogaerts, though I'm sure most GMs will begin by asking for one of them. As CP says, Swihart is a more likely candidate to be traded because we have Vazquez and Hanigan, and while that would be a tough pill to swallow, it wouldn't be as tough as giving up Betts or Bogaerts.

I don't worry about their money, but despite what some fans think, the Sox do not have unlimited finances. It is also unlikely that they are going to continually go above the luxury tax limit, as the penalties get steeper with each consecutive year. If signing Price does not financially prohibit the Sox from filling their other needs, then it's all good. If, OTOH, it does prohibit them from fielding a competive team in 5 years or so, then it will be an issue.

Yes, you are getting me wrong on this.

I agree CP. I do not follow the farm system as closely as you do, so I don't know exactly what the value is on each of our prospects, nor do I know exactly how far each of them is away from the major league level. But I do know that we have enough pieces that we could put together a very desirable package for a #1 pitcher without having to deal Betts or Bogaerts and without mortgaging our entire future.

While you might be right, that is not necessarily true. You have no idea what other GMs might be willing to take. I will say that if a trade involves Betts or Bogaerts, then I would say no. I would hate to part with Swihart as well, but he is someone that I could part with if Vazquez shows that he is healthy.

I will not be actively worried about the back end of the contract if he is signed. I will enjoy every minute of him pitching like an ace for us and hopefully leading us to another championship. IMO, if he leads us to another championship in the first part of his contract, then he will have been worth the contract, much like I think the Peavy or Iglesias trade was worth it. That said, signing Price does not guarantee even a playoff berth, much less a WS ring. As I said, as a fan, I will be thrilled if the Sox sign Price. That is not mutually exclusive with my right to shudder at the same time. As far as how much worse they could do than 3 last place finishes, they could have 3 last place finishes with no championship in between. But even if they have three 4th place finishes because they are strapped by large contracts, is that really any better?

That is typically my preference as well. However, I think that presently, the team has a deep enough farm that we can deal from areas of strength without sacrificing our future. I am not condoning trading Betts or Bogaerts.

I think we would all be ecstatic if Hanley could do that. I am on record as saying many times that I am against putting Hanley at first base. The idea of him at first base makes me shudder. LOL Maybe he'll pleasantly surprise us. If Hanley is our 1B to start the season next year, I think the FO has to be ready to pull the plug quickly on the first base experiment if it does not go well.

No one is trying to stifle any conversation. Carry on, sir.

No need to apologize. I was okay with the Sox signing Hanley to the contract in the first place. Obviously, it hasn't worked out to date, but at the time, I felt that signing him for what I think was a reasonable contract was a good move.

Well, Price had to pitch out of the stretch after not having to since the first inning. Also, think of the possible psychological effect it had on the Royals. They finally had a base runner, plus it woke the crowd up. Sometimes, this type of thing is all it takes to get a team or a batter going. Momentum is another one of those unpredictable things.

I am not okay with paying Hanley to play elsewhere. In a perfect world, Hanley will work hard this offseason, return next spring, and be able to play a decent 1B while rebounding offensively to where he was the past several years. That said, I realize that there is a strong likelihood that Hanley will be traded this offseason, with the Sox eating a significant part of his contract. I will not be okay with dead money on Price's contract either. However, if that dead money does not keep us from remaining competitve, then it's not as big an issue.

Ah, okay. No doubt that was part of the plan, and would have been great if only Hanley had cooperated. LOL

I would like to say to SoxFanForsythe - excellent posts. You should post more often.

If you shudder at last place finishes, then you should shudder at the thought of the back end of a Price contract.

Greinke is an intriguing possibility, but he is one I would be very wary about handing out a large contract to. First because of his age. Secondly, because of his anxiety disorder. LA may be a large market, but from what I understand, nothing compares to Boston or NY when it comes to media and fan scrutiny and frenzy. IMO, being able to perform in LA is not a sure sign that he will be able to perform in Boston. Also, beware of his peripheal numbers. Greinke is still very good regardless, but with a BABIP of .229, an xFIP of 3.22, and a SIERA of 3.27, his ERA of 1.66 is a little misleading.

That is true. I have no doubt that Dombrowski will acquire a top starting pitcher, and it will cost us one way or another.

I understand wanting that potential for the short term. I also understand the need to sometimes take the plunge and hand out a large contract. I'm not going to complain if Price is signed. I just hope that in doing so, we don't find the team unable to compete for several years in the near future. OTOH, it's also possible that Price performs well for the length of the entire contract. I usually prefer signing a player through FA versus trading away prospects, but this is a time where it might make more sense to try for someone like Sale or Gray via trade. We have the pieces to do so, and as you mentioned, some of those pieces will be blocked. Additonally, pitchers like Sale and Gray are younger and cost-controlled for several years.