A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from promise4you. Show promise4you's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, forgive me as I dont have time to read the 300+ posts here and some of this may have been suggested.
    I think it's time to go young! Im tired of thinking you can buy a WS! We all have our favorite old time players, but when do we say goodbye and let the young breath? Im tired of hearing about young players coming up in other organizations and all we hear is that we have this kid or that kid in the minors and he is not ready. Not ready at age 22-25? If thats the case it's time to clean the system of them. That being said,
    C- Salty & Lavarnway (also DH)
    1st - Agon
    2nd - Pedey
    SS - Bogaerts (only 19 and showing HR power)
    3RD - Middlebrooks (23 and HR power)
    LF - Crawford
    CF - Ells
    RF - Brentz (right handed power we seek)
    DH - Papi
    Utilty Lowrie, Aviles, (Reddick or Kalish)
    SP - Beckett, Buch, Jon, Doubront,((Bedard if he will stay) or Barnes or Ranaudo)
    BP - Aceves, Wheeler, Morales, Bowden, Bard, Jenks, Albers


    Trade Lackey, yes someone on the west coast will take him, just be prepared to eat all but a million a year of his contract. This lose of money is easily made up by a minimum ML contract of one of the kids that take his place, they cannot do any worse!
    Tek - walks or becomes a coach
    Youk - trade to Cinci, Pick up all but 1 Mil of his contract
    Paps - let him walk take the draft picks
    Wake - retires, like i said its time to let the kids play!
    Scut - Thanks for the few good years and good luck to you

    Everyone else? - Who cares send them to AAA or let them take a walk!

    I dont have time to see what the cost ramifications are, but im thinking the payroll would be no more than where it is and most likely less! Im tired of watching my Sox try to buy a WS! Lets do it from within or bust! At least we would expect the kids to go out and bust their butts trying to impress.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    I really hope we don't get into the Sabathia / CJ Wilson sweepstakes - save the money for next year's FA crop, which will include Cain, Liriano, Greinke, Hamels & Marcum.
    Posted by slomag


    This sounds like a very good suggestion to me. The Red Sox are not going to have trouble scoring runs. Its the PITCHING that has been substandard for many years. It will not improve in a single year, either, and it won't improve at all if Epstein remains. Next year's FA pitching crop looks much more talented than this year's crop.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon, you make me work. I think we should both be on payroll for this discussion.

    I'm still waiting for my check...LOL!

    I originally took issue with "We played like losers" label. I don't like labels.
    Did we play like winners? No. I don't like labels on either side.

    I think we are not as far apart as it seems. I never intended to "label" our guys as losers, and I do not think saying they "played like" losers says they "are" losers. We lost 20 out of 27 games. We didn't do that by playing like winners. To me, it doesn't really even matter if were outmatched or not. We lost a lot, and it was because we played like losers. We didn't have our best team on the field- for sure. I agree. We do disagree on some of the games where I think we did have the better team on the field even with injuries and struggling pitchers on the mound, but it doesn't change the fact about how we played. We did not play like winners.

    The reasons why the team performed as it did is more the sticking point. 
    And I clearly stated the reasons were largely due to pitching injuries. The track record for each pitcher when healthy is undeniable.

    I never doubted that fact.

    The odds of losing 4 main arms at key intervals in one year is probably astronomical. But it happened. That's why the team tanked.
    They didn't suddenly play like losers after 4 months without a reason.

    I think they did. We had Weiland, Miller, Lackey, and an over-worked Wake taking the hill 3-4 times out of 5. They did nt pitch like winners (maybe because some of them are not, in fact winners), or because they were worse on paper than our opponent's pitcher that game. Either way: they pitched like losers and we lost.

    Were are expectations high playing teams they usually beat? Of course, because we thought we'd see a return to form by Beckett/Bedard/Lester.
    That didn't happen. A Josh Beckett when healthy will hold down most teams.
    A Josh Beckett at say 70% is no longer the Josh Beckett we assume will take the mound. He becomes a lesser pitcher with endurance issues.

    Yes, and he pitched like a loser in September for the reasons you state.

    That means he can and will fall prey to any M. L. line-up. And no healthy M.L. line-up can be taken lightly. I certainly wouldn't call the O's line-up a joke.
    Their DH hit .290. They had an A.S. catcher. Hardy and Reynolds, two infielders, hit 67 home-runs and knocked in 186 RBI's. Markakis had a decent year. Jones hit .280 with 25 dingers. Keep in mind, they don't play half their games in Fenway.

    I disagree. They were and are a joke. Most of the games we played them, they had 0-1 guys with an OPS over .800. Even with Youk out, we had line-ups with 4-5 guys with OPS over .800 with 3 over .900. We scored a ton more runs than the O's and Aviles filled in well for Youk, so even that excuse is flawed. 

    The O's scored 65 less road runs than Boston, but Boston didn't have Youk in Sept. How does that affect the difference?

    See above: Aviles did great in September...better than Youk's season numbers,

    Keep in mind, Youk's replacements, Lowrie/Aviles produce about 24 runs (RS/RBI) per every 100 at bats. Youk produdes about 35 runs per 100 AB's.

    Put the O's line-up against a Bedard or Beckett at 70% - or Weiland at 100% - and they will get hit. And the team will lose. The Sept. ERA's don't  lie. Just as the pitchers with Salty compared to Tek were compromised, and the results reflected in W/L, so were the pitching numbers compromised by injury, etc.
    That means the team fielded an inferior product.

    My point is that either way, we played like losers... one, because we were better and should have won, but didn't play like winners...or... two, because we were inferior due to injuries and because of that did not play like winners either.

    The Run differential, as you alluded to in an earlier post, is easily skewed by a game or two where the team beats upon poor pitching. For example, We out-score Toronto 28-19 but lose 3 of 4. One of the games we trounce them 14-0. That means they out-score us 19-14 in the other three, two losses by a run.

    That was my point. Our runs were skewed by playing like the Sox of the 70's... the Sox often allued to as "chokes" or "losers", although I would not call them that. The point is, we hit well when we didn't need it (when up 15-3), but didn't hit when we needed it (down 4-3). It reminded me of teams that find ways to lose even though they look good on paper.

    Later we split with them: an 18-6 pounding and then lose 5-4. Obviously, run differential doesn't tell an accurate story. 

    But, that was my point. We outplayed them and just split. 

    The Rays pound the compromised staff 22-8 over 3 games. Then 24 - 14 in 4 games in Fenway. In 5 of the 7 games, the Rays scored no less than 6 runs.
    We both know a catcher can't possibly hit enough to compensate for a half-run differential. In the same way, a superior line-up that scores 5 runs a game on the average can't compensate for giving up 6-7 runs per game.
    Not unless the opposing pitcher was worse than ours. 

    We did not have better pitching than TB, particularly down the stretch. That's one reason why I projected 90-92 wins for TB. I still had hopes we'd do better vs TB than we did down the stretch, but our aces faultered and our hitting didn't step it up enough.

    In the 4-game O's set, we out-score 'em 32-28, but one game was a lop-sided 18-9 win. The rest? Lost 6-5  6-4  7-5. One game again skews the picture. 

    Yes, I know. That was my point.

    Yes the team scored 14 in the final three game-set with the birds. Isn't that about what the Sox average for the year? But the pitchers gave up 17 runs, so it really didn't matter. 

    There's two ways to look at this: From the top or from the bottom.
    From the top, we expected them to pitch according to past performance.
    From the bottom, they didn't because their past performance was when they were healthy. If we knew ahead of time that their form would be so compromised, then we'd have expected the inevitable.

    I go through this all the time in horse racing, Moon. I expect certain horses to run according to form.They don't sometimes. Why? Because either they aren't healthy, or because other factors came into play that weren't envisioned.

    I don't label them either way. I just learn and use the data for future reference.
    If we center on the collapse more than the reasons for it, then addressing the issues to prevent a repeat occurrence is futile.

    A couple of notes: I never advocated Crawford to hit 2nd, but that's neither here nor there. I also came across an amazing stat:

    Zach Britton:
    Home: 11-0  2.12 ERA
    Away: 0-11   9.49 ERA.

    Now that's a rare case where home advantage completely outweighs venue.

    When I called Tito out for moving CC up to the #2 slot, I called it an "act of desperation" that did not send a good message to the team. Scutaro should have batted 2nd. I remember you saying I was wrong for saying that. Perhaps, I read too much into that by assuming you thought he should have batted 2nd that game. Sorry.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from highflysox. Show highflysox's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Some of these posts have to be by 5 year old toddlers .This dude wants Brentz who has NEVER seen a pitch from a AA PITCHER YET .This clown must be on dope or is just a BID DOPE HIMSELF.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-Bay-Fan. Show J-Bay-Fan's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    .. Why not leverage the value of Kevin Youkilis to get a good starting pitcher? . the young talent Will Middlebrooks is ready to play in the big leagues.(Later I will explain why) Jose Iglesias also. It is true that Jose needs to develop more batting but with the rest of the offense the Red Sox, can be given the opportunity to both (Middlebrooks and Iglesias). ..

    - True. On the infield you will have  Adrian Gonzalez (1B), Dustin Pedroia (2B), Jose Iglesias (SS) and Will Middlebrooks (3B).. Something weird looking left side of the infield. But we will have the best rotation in the major leagues... Remebering we have Carl Crawford (LF),  Jacoby Ellsbury (CF) and Josh Reddick (RF) in the outfield .. Ofensive players 


    3B Kevin Youkilis (33 next season) can be traded for pitchers who are free agents after the 2012 season.  And will be available in July.
    Some options may be:

    Cole Hamels (29) 

    The Phillies have Placido Polanco in his last contract year, with 37 years-old. And Kevin Youkilis with a prospects and a minor leaguer in exchange for Cole Hamels can be a tentative offer for the Phillies. Kevin Youkilis can replace Placido Polanco at third base and the injury of Ryan Howard for the rest of next season, Youkilis can play first. 

    Haren (32) 

    The Angels third baseman is Maicer Izturis (free agent after the season 2012).For the Angels would like to change a power player. Kevin Youkilis would be a good option for them. Dan Haren is also good option for Boston 

    Zack Greinke (28) 

    The Milwaukee Brewers have Jerry Hairston Jr. at third. Not as good as Youkilis, but with this trade, the Brewers could use Kevin Youkilis at first base to replace Prince Fielder (free agent after the World Series, 2011). And having money available to sign for Jose ReyesKevin Youkilis with a good prospect is good deal 

    Matt Cain (28) 

    The Giants have Pablo Sandoval who can play third or first base. If Pablo plays first, there will be no third base. If Paul plays third, there will be no first baseman.Youkilis has more skill to play Sandoval first. And this would be perfect. Should take a day off to one of the two, the other will be available to play the vacancy left 

    Any pitcher of these give the Red Sox one of the best rotations in all major leagues. Just thinking: 
    -Lester -Beckett - [Hamels - Haren - Greinke - Cain] -Buchholz and Lackey 
    Dice-K available to trade  
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    Moon, forgive me as I dont have time to read the 300+ posts here and some of this may have been suggested. I think it's time to go young! Im tired of thinking you can buy a WS! We all have our favorite old time players, but when do we say goodbye and let the young breath? Im tired of hearing about young players coming up in other organizations and all we hear is that we have this kid or that kid in the minors and he is not ready. Not ready at age 22-25? If thats the case it's time to clean the system of them. That being said, C- Salty & Lavarnway (also DH) 1st - Agon 2nd - Pedey SS - Bogaerts (only 19 and showing HR power) 3RD - Middlebrooks (23 and HR power) LF - Crawford CF - Ells RF - Brentz (right handed power we seek) DH - Papi Utilty Lowrie, Aviles, (Reddick or Kalish) SP - Beckett, Buch, Jon, Doubront,((Bedard if he will stay) or Barnes or Ranaudo) BP - Aceves, Wheeler, Morales, Bowden, Bard, Jenks, Albers Trade Lackey, yes someone on the west coast will take him, just be prepared to eat all but a million a year of his contract. This lose of money is easily made up by a minimum ML contract of one of the kids that take his place, they cannot do any worse! Tek - walks or becomes a coach Youk - trade to Cinci, Pick up all but 1 Mil of his contract Paps - let him walk take the draft picks Wake - retires, like i said its time to let the kids play! Scut - Thanks for the few good years and good luck to you Everyone else? - Who cares send them to AAA or let them take a walk! I dont have time to see what the cost ramifications are, but im thinking the payroll would be no more than where it is and most likely less! Im tired of watching my Sox try to buy a WS! Lets do it from within or bust! At least we would expect the kids to go out and bust their butts trying to impress.
    Posted by promise4you

    We wouldn't probably win with this team, so why not let Papi walk too?
    We could trade Youk for soemone good and not have to pay a cent of his deal.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    Moon, forgive me as I dont have time to read the 300+ posts here and some of this may have been suggested. I think it's time to go young! Im tired of thinking you can buy a WS! We all have our favorite old time players, but when do we say goodbye and let the young breath? Im tired of hearing about young players coming up in other organizations and all we hear is that we have this kid or that kid in the minors and he is not ready. Not ready at age 22-25? If thats the case it's time to clean the system of them. That being said, C- Salty & Lavarnway (also DH) 1st - Agon 2nd - Pedey SS - Bogaerts (only 19 and showing HR power) 3RD - Middlebrooks (23 and HR power) LF - Crawford CF - Ells RF - Brentz (right handed power we seek) DH - Papi Utilty Lowrie, Aviles, (Reddick or Kalish) SP - Beckett, Buch, Jon, Doubront,((Bedard if he will stay) or Barnes or Ranaudo) BP - Aceves, Wheeler, Morales, Bowden, Bard, Jenks, Albers Trade Lackey, yes someone on the west coast will take him, just be prepared to eat all but a million a year of his contract. This lose of money is easily made up by a minimum ML contract of one of the kids that take his place, they cannot do any worse! Tek - walks or becomes a coach Youk - trade to Cinci, Pick up all but 1 Mil of his contract Paps - let him walk take the draft picks Wake - retires, like i said its time to let the kids play! Scut - Thanks for the few good years and good luck to you Everyone else? - Who cares send them to AAA or let them take a walk! I dont have time to see what the cost ramifications are, but im thinking the payroll would be no more than where it is and most likely less! Im tired of watching my Sox try to buy a WS! Lets do it from within or bust! At least we would expect the kids to go out and bust their butts trying to impress.
    Posted by promise4you


    Why do you expect that?

    Maybe we also need to expect some of them to quit completely due to frustration and being overmatched, too? 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from myaim45. Show myaim45's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I'm of the opinion that Youk needs to be traded no matter what. If he can fetch a solid reliever and some prospects I would be more than excited. I would perfer to trade him to the national league so we don;t have to play him to often but if its the right trade I would trade him anywhere. Same with John Lackey. I would trade him (Lackey) and Theo to the Cubs for Starlin Castro. But that's just me.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxnsl. Show maxnsl's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : Right. I'd like to see Beckett get in top shape this winter with some stamina building workouts. I'd like to see Buch gain 10 lbs.
    Posted by moonslav59
    And i would like to win the lottery neither one is going to happen
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : And i would like to win the lottery neither one is going to happen
    Posted by maxnsl


    Yeah, but hope is free.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    'If wishes were horses,
    Then beggqars might ride.
    If horse tirds were hot cross buns,
    We'd eat 'til we died."
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon:

    We had Weiland, Miller, Lackey, and an over-worked Wake taking the hill 3-4 times out of 5. They did nt pitch like winners (maybe because some of them are not, in fact winners), or because they were worse on paper than our opponent's pitcher that game. Either way: they pitched like losers and we lost.

    They pitched like winners... They pitched like losers...
    Maybe they just pitched the best they could at that given moment.
    Saying an over-worked Wake or a Lackey pitching on a questionable limb or AAA pitchers like Miller/Weiland pitched like losers is like trying to blame a cellar-dweller for coming in last. They gave what they had. They didn't have much.

    I disagree. They (O's) were and are a joke. Most of the games we played them, they had 0-1 guys with an OPS over .800. Even with Youk out, we had line-ups with 4-5 guys with OPS over .800 with 3 over .900. We scored a ton more runs than the O's and Aviles filled in well for Youk, so even that excuse is flawed.

    This "joke" of an O's line-up would have had different OPS numbers playing in cushy Fenway for 81 games. And facing the pitchers Boston faced. Boston's H/A OPS differential was 59 points favoring Fenway. O's OPS H/A variance was 28 points favoring Home.

    Boston scored  an average of 10-11 runs a month more than Baltimore when each team was away from home venue. Obviously, blow-out games distort the picture, but for the sake of argument, look at Sept.
    Aviles/Lowrie filled in for Youk, who produces about 35 runs per 100 AB's.

    Aviles in Sept: almost same ratio of production - 16 runs - but only had 48 AB's (.861 OPS)
    Lowrie in Sept: 12 runs produced in 43 AB's (.562 OPS)
    Combined, that's about 7 less runs produced. Remove the Fenway factor and the two teams field line-ups of similar production.

    Here's another way to look at it. The O's scored 96 runs in Sept. not including their games with Boston. The RedSox scored 98 runs in their Sept. games N/I games with the O's. And this includes the Fenway factor. Now consider this: In no single game did the O's score more than 10 runs.
    The RedSox had two 18-run blow-out games and a 14 run blow-away.

    Remove the three blowouts and the O's three highest scoring games and Baltimore had a major advantage. If you label their line-up a joke, then Boston's is George Carlin territory.


    My point is that either way, we played like losers... one, because we were better and should have won, but didn't play like winners...or... two, because we were inferior due to injuries and because of that did not play like winners either.

    And my whole point is we were not better and that's why we lost. What we expected did not pan out because we didn't see it true. Tell me this: What would you expect if you had inside information that the pitching was hurt/off-form and you made realistic adjustments for venue for all teams? How many games in Sept. do you think the team would have won if you knew the pitchers would be giving up 6-7 runs a game every game on the average?



    When I called Tito out for moving CC up to the #2 slot, I called it an "act of desperation" that did not send a good message to the team. Scutaro should have batted 2nd. I remember you saying I was wrong for saying that. Perhaps, I read too much into that by assuming you thought he should have batted 2nd that game. Sorry.

    I don't think I said you were wrong. I disagreed that Tito was panicking. I think line-up adjustments
     are a good thing when the team is struggling. I do think he was blind when he let Lavernway hit 5th in the all-important finale.

    What did ya think of those wild Zach Britton splits?





     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    'If wishes were horses, Then beggqars might ride. If horse tirds were hot cross buns, We'd eat 'til we died."
    Posted by Critter23



    I'll keep this thought with me during the winter;)
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Saying an over-worked Wake or a Lackey pitching on a questionable limb or AAA pitchers like Miller/Weiland pitched like losers is like trying to blame a cellar-dweller for coming in last...

    I just think we both view the statement "played like losers" differently. I do think cellar-dwellers play like losers, and it's not "blaming" them for anything, if they were indeed the worst team on paper that year. Again, it doesn't matter to me if they were the worst team on paper or failed to meet expectations, if you lose 20 out of 27, you played like losers. It doesn't mean they didn't give it their all and do the best they could and got the expected result or not.

    If you label their line-up a joke, then Boston's is George Carlin territory.

    Yes, they would have better numbers if their home field was Fenway, but I still think their line-up was and is a joke. They had a .729 OPS this year. BTW, it was just .739 in Fenway and .743 at Baltimore.

    And my whole point is we were not better and that's why we lost.

    My whole point is that the "expectation" part doesn't matter anyways, and besides that all September you and I believed we were better and would win enough to make the playoffs, so we failed to meet your expectations and mine. Now, in hindsight, you are acting like you knew all along we were not good enough to win 2 more games.

    Tell me this: What would you expect if you had inside information that the pitching was hurt/off-form and you made realistic adjustments for venue for all teams? How many games in Sept. do you think the team would have won if you knew the pitchers would be giving up 6-7 runs a game every game on the average?

    Even though you refuse to answer the question I have asked 2 or 3 times (did we play like winners in Sept or not?), I'll answwer yours...

    I'd bet we'd win more than 7 games in Sept even if we had this for a starting 5:
    Wake
    Lackey
    Weiland
    Miller
    Wally

    We both knew what Lackey, Wake, Weiland and others were doing. You had been saying all year long that Lester was not the same. We both knew Bedard and Beckett were coming off injuries, and we both projected we'd play well enough to make the playoffs. 

    I did "adjust" for less effectiveness after returning from injury. I did not expect Lester to get shelled.

    As for the 6-7 runs question, of course in hindsight, I'd say  we wouldn't win much letting up 6-7 or more runs, but that is hindsight. Playing like losers includes letting up 6-7 runs in many games; it also includes losing those 1-0, 4-3 , 5-4, 4-2, 6-5 and 4-3 games.

    harness, we are just arguing semantics here. You don't think the worst team in baseball plays like losers if they are expected to play like that. I disagree. Let's move on...

    What did ya think of those wild Zach Britton splits?

    Bizzaro!  He single-handedly changed the team's overall home-road splits.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosox0489. Show bosox0489's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    It saddens me to be staring this thread so early. I had hoped and expected better. With Tito gone, one question is answered, but who takes his place is another. I'm all for Jim Leyland, but we'll see. Next year seems so faraway, but there is a lot to be done. Big decisions need to be made: 1) Re-sign Papi? 2) Re-sign Paps? 3) Options for Scutaro, Wheeler and Miller? 4) Arb raises? 5) Wake and Vtek? 6) Trades? 7) Free Agents? 8) Injuries and conditioning? 9) Coaching? 10) Young kids stepping up? Again, let's try to keep this thread about Sox-related issues. Keep away from politics and personal attacks and baiting. There's a lot to discuss, so let the talks begin. I'd like to provide a summary of what I believe our payroll and player choices will come down to. I'm not sure if our budget will be set at about what it is now. If it is, we may have to be very creative as well as rely on our kids to take greater roles in 2012. Here is how I look at the budget next year and what choices we may have... The arbs: Ellsbury $2.4M /> ? (Arb year 2 of 3) Albers    $875K > ? (Arb 3 of 4) Salty      $750K > ? (Arb 1 of 3) Aceves  $650K > ? (Arb 1 of 3) Bard       $505K > ? (Arb 1 of 4) DMac      $470K > ? (Arb 1 of 4)  Maybe Theo lets him walk or trades him. Lowrie    $450K > ? (Arb 1 of 3) Morales $424K > ? (Arb 1 of 3) Maybe he walks, but his replacement will not save much money. My guess is we keep all and  we add about $10M to the 2011  budget  here. There are option players: Scutaro  $6M club option/$3M player option ($1.5M buy out) Wheeler $3M club option (guaranteed if 65 games pitched reached) A. Miller  $3m club option ? (some gray area here) Assume we let all of them go for now, just to see what is leftover, and we can revisit bringing them back later. (Remember, Scutaro has a $1.5M buyout, so brining him back would cost just $4.5M more after the buyouy is counted. However, I have heard that the $1.5 buyout is if Scutaro wants his $3M player option.) We save about $12.5M minus the $1.5M buyout for a  savings of about $11M . Then, there are FreeAgents: JD Drew    $14M   Ortiz          $12.5M Papelbon  $10.33M Varitek      $2M Wakefield $2M Bedard      $1M Let's wipe the slate clean just for argument's sake. We  save a total of $42M. Add the losses of Cameron and Reyes:  save about $8M. I am not sure about the Adrian Gonzalez deal. I think because it was signed after day one, his salary did not count on this year's budget, but his average yearly salary from 2012 to 2018 will be counted starting next year.  The Sox also extended Buch at about $8.5M per year. That's about $8M more than this year. That's an  added cost of $23.5M  from the 2011 budget. The pre-decision breakdown comes to    about $28M   to spend on filling all the holes from all the players  who had  options or are FAs. Here are some possible in house solutions, if we decide not to bring some guys back: If Paps walks: Closer: (Bard? Jenks? Then, we'll need more set up men.)  If Papi walks: DH: Lavarnway and or Youk (Lowrie/Aviles/Middlebrooks at 3B) Drew  will  walk: RF: (Reddick, Kalish, DMac) If we lose Wakefield/Bedard: SP (Doubront, Weiland, and "Wally") If VTek walks: C (Lavarnway) If Wheeler walks: RP:  (Doubront, Bowden ) That leaves this as the framework to work with... C: Salty (Lavarnway from DH) 1B: AGon 2B: Pedey 3B: Youk SS: Aviles/Lowrie/Iglesias LF: Craw/DMac CF: Ells RF: Reddick/Kalish DH: Lavarnway or (Youk from 3B) SP1 Beckett SP2 Lester SP3 Buch SP4 Lack SP5 Dice (Injured until maybe August.) SP6 Doubront SP7 Weiland RP1 Bard RP2 Jenks RP3 Aceves RP4 Albers RP5 Morales RP6 Bowden To me, our 7 top priorities are: 1) A solid #2/3 type starter or two starters of slot 3/4 quality. 2) Closer  3) SS (Great fielder prefered) 4) RF (RH'd and can field RF well) 5) RP (at least 2) 6) C (Hits LHPs well and can handle the staff) 7) Bench Your civil, focused, and insightful Red Sox thoughts are welcome.
    Posted by moonslav59

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosox0489. Show bosox0489's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I


        get really annoyed by people who want to build the club based on $ for the

       love of time is it your $ ? Screw the cost we need the best players who wont

       quit, when you are out of shape you become a coward. some guys on this

       give 150% others guzzle beer i say sh t can them.    steve bosox 1946 semper fi
    .
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Your word organization is tremendous.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I got a headache trying to just read it.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    Slo, I either liked all your ideas above or could support them except for the trade Ells one.  Yes, we could probably get a lot for him but that would just make a hole in our outfield too which would have to be filled with something coming back.  We must have him cheaply for several more years.  And was he not the most valuable player on our team this year?  How do you find a guy to do everything he did?  Having said this, I think ALL options and trades should be considered to make this team better.  Also, do we really know he doesn't want to be back here in the future?
    Posted by Critter23

    I think the outfield hole can be filled - I'm not saying we're going to replace Ellsbury's 2011 production, but there's no guarantee Ellsbury will replace Ellsbury's 2011 production.  The truth is, if you asked me at the start of the year who would be more productive of the two, I would have said Crawford, and I'm not sure I wouldn't make the same prediction at the start of 2012.  I think what we saw in Ellsbury is the peak of his abilities combined with a completely healthy year - do we see that again in 2012?  I'm not saying dump him by any means - but trading him is our best shot to fill holes that can't be filled in FA, and maybe our best shot to get younger.

    I look at it this way - there are three teams that I think would absolutely kill to have Ellsbury in their lineup: the Giants, the Braves and the White Sox.  The first two because they are starved for offense, and Ellsbury gives them a variety of ways to score a run.  The White Sox are not as bad off offensively, but they have the worst CF in MLB and they trot out 8 right-handed hitters every day.  Now, if Ellsbury played for the Pirates or Royals, these teams would be in a bidding war for his talents this off-season, with young talent their currency.  So why should the price for the Sox be any different?  The return is going to depend on where else we can fill holes, and what other holes open up due to our FAs leaving.  But there are many, many scenarios I can think of that could ultimately help our ball club.  Say Ellsbury to CWS for Sale & Viciedo.  Or to the Braves for Teheran and Venters.  In either scenario, we let Papelbon walk and use the reliever to set up Bard.  In the CWS scenario, we have a big RH bat who can play OF or 3B; with the ATL scenario we have a guy who could be a #4 starter as soon as 2012.  It's a gamble, but in my mind so is hanging onto Ellsbury.  The difference with this gamble, cost-controlled early-20s players will retain their value, if more pressing needs come up.

    Here's another out of the box idea - spend a ton of money on the Yu Darvish posting fee, sign him to a 6 year / $50M contract, and then immediately trade him to the Marlins for Josh Johnson.  I'll bet the Marlins would bite (pun intended).



     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I don't get the "sell Ellsbury high" threads. I see no reason at all why he won't continue to put up great numbers for the next 2 years. This isn't Pittsburgh.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    I don't get the "sell Ellsbury high" threads. I see no reason at all why he won't continue to put up great numbers for the next 2 years. This isn't Pittsburgh.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom


    That's a possibility, but what is the best case scenario?  We sign Ells long-term and wind up with a $40M+ outfield?  I guess it boils down to which of the following you think is most likely, and which you most value.

    scenario 1: We hold onto Ellsbury and sign him long-term for about $20M/year.  My opinion is there is no way this happens.

    scenario 2: We get 2 years of great play from Ellsbury and take the draft picks.  My opinion is this is not the end of the world, but the return is disappointing, and would have us shaking our heads in 2014.

    scenario 3: We get 1 more great year from Ellsbury, and trade him next winter, but knowing his trade value will have decreased with only one year of control left.  This isn't the end of the world either, but again, we can do better - what are the chances that Ellsbury is the difference between winning it all or not in 2012?

    scenario 4: We see a regression or injury from Ellsbury in 2012, and he is down to one year of control, at which point his trade value is reduced significantly.  My opinion is this is the most likely scenario, and we are SOL next off-season.

    scenario 5: Trade Ells now, and get young, cheap talent that can be used to help the team now and as trade bait in the future.  Use one of those holes to fill Papelbon's slot, and use the money saved letting Paps walk toward a top FA pitcher in 2012.  My opinion is this is by far the best option.


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : That's a possibility, but what is the best case scenario?  We sign Ells long-term and wind up with a $40M+ outfield?  I guess it boils down to which of the following you think is most likely, and which you most value. scenario 1: We hold onto Ellsbury and sign him long-term for about $20M/year.  My opinion is there is no way this happens. scenario 2: We get 2 years of great play from Ellsbury and take the draft picks.  My opinion is this is not the end of the world, but the return is disappointing, and would have us shaking our heads in 2014. scenario 3: We get 1 more great year from Ellsbury, and trade him next winter, but knowing his trade value will have decreased with only one year of control left.  This isn't the end of the world either, but again, we can do better - what are the chances that Ellsbury is the difference between winning it all or not in 2012? scenario 4: We see a regression or injury from Ellsbury in 2012, and he is down to one year of control, at which point his trade value is reduced significantly.  My opinion is this is the most likely scenario, and we are SOL next off-season. scenario 5: Trade Ells now, and get young, cheap talent that can be used to help the team now and as trade bait in the future.  Use one of those holes to fill Papelbon's slot, and use the money saved letting Paps walk toward a top FA pitcher in 2012.  My opinion is this is by far the best option.
    Posted by slomag


    We are a big market team, optimized to win every year. I for one don't see us trading Ellsbury and I doubt that they extend him either because he is going to cost Crawford money. If everything tanks maybe we trade him next winter but I think we take the picks in 2 years if he hopefully remains a type A.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The reason is not so much that we don't think he will continue to produce for 2 more years 9at least I think he will), but rather we ONLY have 2 more years of control, then maybe 2 draft picks. Trading him now, might net 2+ players with 5 years of controlabilty each.

    I'm not for trading just for the sake of dumping him while his stock is high. I want to see the deal before I say yes or no.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : We are a big market team, optimized to win every year. I for one don't see us trading Ellsbury and I doubt that they extend him either because he is going to cost Crawford money. If everything tanks maybe we trade him next winter but I think we take the picks in 2 years if he hopefully remains a type A.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom


    I'm not saying give up on 2012 - 2013.  I actually see a lot of options out there for replacing Ellsbury, not the least of which is Grady Sizemore, who I think has about a 25% chance of having a better season than Ells in 2012 (50/50 if both are fully healthy).  We could also sign Beltran to a one-year deal, so we're not committing money that could be used for a 2012 FA pitcher, but have a serviceable CF in the meantime.  There's also a chance that both Kalish and Reddick could prove ready for full-time duties next year.  Ultimately, though, we could put Darnell McDonald out there and offense would not be a problem for this team.  

    Draft picks are important, but remember, we're never going to get a top 15 pick, no matter how many of our FAs walk, so the chance for that particular compensation pick to actually become an impact player is not high, and would not happen for several years.


     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    The reason is not so much that we don't think he will continue to produce for 2 more years 9at least I think he will), but rather we ONLY have 2 more years of control, then maybe 2 draft picks. Trading him now, might net 2+ players with 5 years of controlabilty each. I'm not for trading just for the sake of dumping him while his stock is high. I want to see the deal before I say yes or no.
    Posted by moonslav59


    I think that Ellsbury will likely continue to produce, but I think it's likely when we look back on his career, this will be among his top 2 or 3 best seasons.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share