A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Fred, you wrote "His talk of possibly resigning James Loney stinks to high heaven".  Two points:

    1)  Can you provide a link to such a statement?; and

    2)  Even if he did, and I hope he is smart enough to have done just that, do you expect Cherington to abuse the guy publically by saying "H3ll no, we don't want him"?  Or would being a bit circumspect and respectful toward one of the 1,000 best baseball players on the planet perhaps make him/the Sox look professional and a desirable boss to other players?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Sonics, a few days ago on Dirt Dogs Home Page, to the right of that page there are current blurbs about players and prospects and it was there that Cherington said he was considering resigning Loney for next year---which I think would be a travesty.  We need a first baseman with some real sock and a little fire and drive, and not a Dodger reject.  I would have liked it a helluva lot better had we told  the Dodgers to stuff it; we didn't want the guy and let them release him or trade him to another team. We could have went with Gomez or somebody on the farm.   This way the temptation is to have him around in the future, and I had enough of resigning stiffs like Varitek and Wakefield the previous three years when it was obvious that one could no longer hit after the end of May and couldn't throw out his mother while the other one had become a human pinata on the mound.  Sorry, but no matter how they do it, Loney has to go.

    As far as the PR part, Cherington doesn't have to denigrate him but he doesn't have to say he might sign him either.  He could simply say he's one of our first baseman for the rest of the season and let the guy walk when it's over.  And that's what he had better do.  You do not win anything with a guy like him playing the gateway position for you.  Of course, while they're about it rid themselves of Aceves, Cook, Padilla and some of that excess trash too.  As Leo Durocher used to say.......BACK UP THE TRUCK.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    If Loney does come back, it will be for real cheap and not as a starter, so I don't see an issue here.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    From last Sunday's Nick Cafardo column in the Boston Globe:

    "2. James Loney, 1B, Red Sox — While the Red Sox are considering re-signing Loney and he is receptive to coming back, he may draw attention elsewhere in a sparse first base market. One team likely to kick the tires is Tampa Bay, which will likely not re-sign Carlos Pena, who has hit under .200 most of the season."

    http://articles.boston.com/2012-09-23/sports/34002042_1_terry-francona-tigers-manager-jim-leyland-angels-executive/4

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    From last Sunday's Nick Cafardo column in the Boston Globe:

    "2. James Loney, 1B, Red Sox — While the Red Sox are considering re-signing Loney and he is receptive to coming back, he may draw attention elsewhere in a sparse first base market. One team likely to kick the tires is Tampa Bay, which will likely not re-sign Carlos Pena, who has hit under .200 most of the season."

    http://articles.boston.com/2012-09-23/sports/34002042_1_terry-francona-tigers-manager-jim-leyland-angels-executive/4

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He can't even reach an .800 career OPS vs RHPs (.793).

    These are not 1Bman numbers. (.659 vs LHPs)

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    We can do better than Loney next year & beyond.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

     

    Do you guys think the Red Sox might go after Nick Swisher as a first baseman?

    How about 3 years at $25 million?

    Swisher's numbers are not that bad either and he seems to be a laid-back guy.  He reminds me of Johnny Damon and Kevin Millar. 

    Swisher is an upgrade over Loney and he won't cost that much money. 

     

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

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Personally, I'd strongly look at offering Kuroda a deal and Sanchez. I've gotta think the yanks want Kuroda back so signing him away accomplishes 2 purposes...and I think we might have the money available!

    Sanchez is a solid stater, or maybe a Jackson. If this team signs some decent pitching things can change enough to at least put us in contention.

    If we end up with a top 6 or 7 slot in the draft we get a higher signing bonus allotment, and we may not necessarily blow that in one of the top guys. We might just spread that money out a little to sign more players overslot. Either way it's a good position to be in.

    Let me repeat....Kuroda should be target 1!

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Read this on mlbtraderumors.com:

     

    "The Red Sox are about to hire Eddie Bane as a special assignment scout, reports ESPN Boston's Gordon Edes. Bane was the Angels' scouting director when they drafted Mike Trout and Jered Weaver, among others. Edes says the Sox are expected to make one more hire as well."

     

    Every G.M. Loves young, talented, and under team control.  Wouldn't mind a guy who has hit on Trout and Weaver.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    I think we can do better than Looney at first base but I don't think we can do much better; at least for a year or two. 

     

    The cost may be too high, but I'd feel good with the sox at least taking a look at Anibal Sanchez and Zack Greinke. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to Ice-Cream's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Do you guys think the Red Sox might go after Nick Swisher as a first baseman?

    How about 3 years at $25 million?

    Swisher's numbers are not that bad either and he seems to be a laid-back guy.  He reminds me of Johnny Damon and Kevin Millar. 

    Swisher is an upgrade over Loney and he won't cost that much money. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I like Swisher, but he has just moved the the end of his prime and may continue to decline a bit:

                  .864                 .869  .870

                         .836                           .822 .822

    .768

                                 .743

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Personally, I'd strongly look at offering Kuroda a deal and Sanchez. I've gotta think the yanks want Kuroda back so signing him away accomplishes 2 purposes...and I think we might have the money available!

     

    I'm OK with Kuroda, if it is just as a bridge to the future, but I think I'd rather spend the money on longer term deals with younger starters that would help in 2013, but more importantly beyond.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to seabeachfred's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Fred, you wrote "His talk of possibly resigning James Loney stinks to high heaven".  Two points:

    1)  Can you provide a link to such a statement?; and

    2)  Even if he did, and I hope he is smart enough to have done just that, do you expect Cherington to abuse the guy publically by saying "H3ll no, we don't want him"?  Or would being a bit circumspect and respectful toward one of the 1,000 best baseball players on the planet perhaps make him/the Sox look professional and a desirable boss to other players?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Sonics, a few days ago on Dirt Dogs Home Page, to the right of that page there are current blurbs about players and prospects and it was there that Cherington said he was considering resigning Loney for next year---which I think would be a travesty.  We need a first baseman with some real sock and a little fire and drive, and not a Dodger reject.  I would have liked it a helluva lot better had we told  the Dodgers to stuff it; we didn't want the guy and let them release him or trade him to another team. We could have went with Gomez or somebody on the farm.   This way the temptation is to have him around in the future, and I had enough of resigning stiffs like Varitek and Wakefield the previous three years when it was obvious that one could no longer hit after the end of May and couldn't throw out his mother while the other one had become a human pinata on the mound.  Sorry, but no matter how they do it, Loney has to go.

    As far as the PR part, Cherington doesn't have to denigrate him but he doesn't have to say he might sign him either.  He could simply say he's one of our first baseman for the rest of the season and let the guy walk when it's over.  And that's what he had better do.  You do not win anything with a guy like him playing the gateway position for you.  Of course, while they're about it rid themselves of Aceves, Cook, Padilla and some of that excess trash too.  As Leo Durocher used to say.......BACK UP THE TRUCK.

    [/QUOTE]


    I would be surprised and unhappy if Loney is with the Sox next year, but I think Cherington said the right thing about a player on his team.  No harm, saves a bit of face for Loney, what's the damage?

    Suprised to see Aceves on your rubbish heap.  His closing was poor this year, but he's been an elite setup guy for several years before this.  His attitude needs adjusting, but that's one of the things managers are paid to do.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Suprised to see Aceves on your rubbish heap.  His closing was poor this year, but he's been an elite setup guy for several years before this.  His attitude needs adjusting, but that's one of the things managers are paid to do.

    A new manager could turn the page enough.

    I'm Ok with trading him, if we get a nice return-- we should.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Reposted:

    We need to think about 2014 and beyond. While I do think we can compete in 2013 if we make a few key moves, we still won't be serious contenders for the ring. If we can move most of the following players for prospects or players that are under team control for several more years, we will be moving in teh right direction. We may also end up flipping some of the prospects for better younger players or a franchise type player.

    David Ortiz: Offer him $12.5M/1 or whatever the minimum deal amount needed so that if he refuses and signes elsewhere we get the compensatory draft pick.

    Players who will be free agents after 2013:

    Jacoby Ellsbury: Trading Ellsbury this winter makes a lot of sense. He must be traded before 2013 begins in order for the team getting him to keep the extra value attached to Jacoby due to compensatory draft choice the team will get if he walks after 2013. I am sure a contender would give a nice prospect or player with longer team control in return. Perhaps, a larger package would net us a key prospect or young franchise type pleyer.

    Jarrod Saltalamacchia: His stock is as high as it has been in years, and with Lava, Swihart and a couple other promising catcher prospects waiting in the wings, it makes sense to explore trading Salty for a prospect. I could also see us extending Salty and trading Lava. If Papi walks, we may keep both and use Lava as a DH vs RHPs.

    Craig Breslow: I like Breslow, but so do many GMs. I think it makes sense to package Craig to try and get a nice prospect or longer-term player.

    Ryan Sweeney: He would have been traded this past July had he not broke his own hand. While he'd make a nice 4th OF'er/defensive OF replacement for a team that may have some defensively challenged OF'ers in 2013 (Nava, Linares, Ross...), Sweeney does not fit into our longer-term plans. He will not bring much in return, but could be part of a larger deal or net us a low-level promising prospect.

    Rich Hill: Could be part of a package deal.

    Players who will be free agents after 2014:

    Andrew Bailey: When we traded for Bailey, we were looking to seriously compete in 2012 & 2013. That has changed. While Andrew is is also signed for 2014, his 2-year value to another team is worth more than his 1 year (2014) value to us. Some contending team would surely offer something nice for Bailey.

    Alfredo Aceves: As with Bailey, his value to another team looking to contend in 2013 and 2014 is more than his value to us. Plus, there seems to be other issues brewing between Alfredo and Sox management. It might be time to part ways and try and get a player under team control for 2015 or beyond.

    Mike Aviles: We have Iggy and Ciriaco for 2013, and Bogaerts and other SS prospects for 2014 and beyond. I don't see Aviles helping us as much as he could help another team at this point. He is a better option than some teams have for 2013, so I am sure some GM wants him.

    Andrew Miller: He has found a nice role in the pen. I think we could look to extend him, or we could give him a longer look next year before deciding. It might be best to wait until next July or winter to decide about extending or trading Andrew.

    Franklin Morales: I like Morales and want to keep him. I wouldn't look to trade him this winter, unless we can get a serious upgrade at starting pitcher.

    Other special cases:

    John Lackey: After proving he is healthy, we may look to deal him next July or winter. He now has the added value of the injury option year at minimum wage that brings down his cost per years of service quite a bit.

    Scott Atchison: While he still has 5 years of team control and has pitched very well for us, his age is an issue. I think we could get a nice prospect for Scott.

    Mauro Gomez: I don't think he is the answer at 1B, so I'd think about including him in a bigger package might make sense.

    Jose Iglesias: I do not want to trade Iggy, but I feel like Sox management does not like the idea of a low offesne SS. Unless they change their view, we might as well trade Iggy if we aren't going to play him.

    Garin Cecchini: I really like this kid, but unless we move him or Middlebrooks to 1B, he is blocked.

    Sean Coyle, Jose Vinicio, T. W. Lin & other possible blocked prospects: Depending on who we trade from the above list or not, we might look to deal some of these blocked prospects as well.

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Southpaw and Moon et al:  I have loved Jim Leyland since he went  nose to nose with Barry Bonds while at Pittsburg (pre-season game?) when Barry first started to fall in love with himself and was hotdogging and not playing seriously.  If the Tigers don't get in the playoffs, is he out at Detroit?  I don't think Tek is really ready to be a manager, but if he wanted the job I don't think he'd stink it up either.  Read an article on a Globe site this last week or so about how woefully unprepared the pitchers were before games this year with McClure taking a hands off approach and Tek not there with his notebooks of years' evaluations of AL pitchers' tendencies.  This is where I would like to see him have a big role, preparing pitchers as well as catchers.  By the way, not to stir up too much, but this article says Lava (not having caught much the last couple of years-yes) when catching Lester and Buch, they have about a one point less on their ERA's than when Salty catches them.

    Moon, I think you're right that we can compete next year, but I don't exactly trust the FO to get the RIGHT guys as free agents, no big contracts, just young guys soon to bloom.  It's all a matter of degree but I would rather have our best young players come up a little early than spring gazillions for Josh Hamilton who I think would not be productive for our long term health.  But I'm afraid some of this FO might "want to make a splash" to"keep the park filled up."

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Suprised to see Aceves on your rubbish heap.  His closing was poor this year, but he's been an elite setup guy for several years before this.  His attitude needs adjusting, but that's one of the things managers are paid to do.

    A new manager could turn the page enough.

    I'm Ok with trading him, if we get a nice return-- we should.

    [/QUOTE]

    Its possible Aceves could resurrect himself in his former role if a new manager with an ounce of PR acumen is hired. I would give him a shot in ST and see how it all unfolds.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Moon, I really like your evaluation of players above.  I think you're right on.  I would like to comment that if Aceves is traded, I'll be fine with it.  But if someone like Leyland is here, I think he would be a great middle reliever and not trouble.  Long term no nonsense baseball career guys have dealt with eccentrics like this before and would be able to make him a good citizen in my view.  You're right though, if the right trade came along, almost anybody here is expendable.  Who is sacred?  For me, honestly the only guy I wouldn't trade is Pedey because he has the fire and grit that I think we want the young guys to emulate.  I would trade Lester and Buch if we got the right guys back.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    John Lackey is now the highest paid Red Sox.  *shaking my head*

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to Critter23's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Moon, I really like your evaluation of players above.  I think you're right on.  I would like to comment that if Aceves is traded, I'll be fine with it.  But if someone like Leyland is here, I think he would be a great middle reliever and not trouble.  Long term no nonsense baseball career guys have dealt with eccentrics like this before and would be able to make him a good citizen in my view.  You're right though, if the right trade came along, almost anybody here is expendable.  Who is sacred?  For me, honestly the only guy I wouldn't trade is Pedey because he has the fire and grit that I think we want the young guys to emulate.  I would trade Lester and Buch if we got the right guys back.

    [/QUOTE]

    Leyland is not coming here. The Tigers are about to wrap up their division.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Critter23's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Moon, I really like your evaluation of players above.  I think you're right on.  I would like to comment that if Aceves is traded, I'll be fine with it.  But if someone like Leyland is here, I think he would be a great middle reliever and not trouble.  Long term no nonsense baseball career guys have dealt with eccentrics like this before and would be able to make him a good citizen in my view.  You're right though, if the right trade came along, almost anybody here is expendable.  Who is sacred?  For me, honestly the only guy I wouldn't trade is Pedey because he has the fire and grit that I think we want the young guys to emulate.  I would trade Lester and Buch if we got the right guys back.

    [/QUOTE]

    Leyland is not coming here. The Tigers are about to wrap up their division.

    [/QUOTE]


    The White Sox got ice-cold the past two weeks. 

    I can hear Kevin Youkilis yelling out the four-letter-"F"-word.  lol

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Southpaw and Moon et al:  I have loved Jim Leyland since he went  nose to nose with Barry Bonds while at Pittsburg (pre-season game?) when Barry first started to fall in love with himself and was hotdogging and not playing seriously.  If the Tigers don't get in the playoffs, is he out at Detroit?

     

    I has a deal up after this year. I have also been a big Leyland fan, and have mentioned bringing him here for years.

     

     I don't think Tek is really ready to be a manager, but if he wanted the job I don't think he'd stink it up either.  Read an article on a Globe site this last week or so about how woefully unprepared the pitchers were before games this year with McClure taking a hands off approach and Tek not there with his notebooks of years' evaluations of AL pitchers' tendencies.  This is where I would like to see him have a big role, preparing pitchers as well as catchers.  

     

    He should be the bench coach in 2013 and work with catchers and pitchers.

     

    By the way, not to stir up too much, but this article says Lava (not having caught much the last couple of years-yes) when catching Lester and Buch, they have about a one point less on their ERA's than when Salty catches them.

     

    Salty has a better CERA than the team average with 6 of 16 of our top pitchers by IP, he's about even with 4-6, and much worse with 4-6 including Lester and Buch. Salty also has a CERA 0.60 less since April 25, 2012 than in 2011 and up to 4/25/12. He's improved with a staff that is worse than 2011's.

    CERA Update:

    Salty 4/2011-4/25/12:        953 Inn  4.88 CERA

    Salty 4/26/12-9/29/12:      747 Inn  4.28 CERA

     

    Shopp up to 4/25/2012:          63 Inn  4.14 CERA

    Shopp 4/26/12-trade:        293.1 Inn  3.93 CERA

     

    Lava 4/2011-4/25/12:         26.2 Inn  4.39 CERA

    Lava 4/26/12-9/29/12:        221 Inn   5.70 CERA

     

    As you can see, Salty has shaved off 0.60 from his CERA up to 4/25/12. When you consider that our pitching staff is worse this year than last, I think this is a significant number.

    Lava's sample size is small, and a learning curve is to be expected, but Salty has a CERA 1.42 lower than Lava since April 25, 2012.

    Let's look pitcher by pitcher for 2012  (Inn) CERA (note: some tiny sample sizes):

                 Sox          Salty             Shopp            Lava

    Lester  4.94    (102) 5.89   (49) 3.70   (49) 4.01

    Buch    4.22       (74) 5.47   (78) 3.28   (36) 3.79

    Doub    4.86    (124) 4.95   (32) 4.18     (5) 7.20

    Beck     5.23      (58) 4.47   (58) 5.46  (11) 7.94

    Cook     5.65      (77) 5.28    (5)  3.60  (12) 8.76

    Aceves  5.40     (51) 4.97  (15) 4.11  (15) 8.04

    Morales 3.77     (52) 2.96  (22) 4.91   (3) 6.79

    Bard      6.22     (36) 5.05  (21) 5.91   (2) 27.00

    Atch      1.60     (37) 2.45    (9) 0.00    (4) 0.00

    Padilla  4.69     (25) 5.68   (20) 2.75    (3) 9.00

    Melan    6.44    (24) 9.99    (8) 2.35   (11) 1.59

    Dice-K   7.68    (25) 4.68    (5) 7.20   (13) 13.50

    Taz         1.50   (29) 1.55   (12) 1.50   (12) 1.50

    Albers     2.29  (22) 2.86   (17) 1.56

    Miller      3.23  (28) 3.74   (11) 3.97  (6) 0.00

    Mort        2.95  (27) 2.33    (7) 2.70   (3) 3.00

     

    Salty's CERA is better than the team CERA with 6 of the 16 pitchers with 20 or more total IP in 2012 (Beckett, Aceves, Morales, Bard, Dice-K & Mortensen). He is behind but close to the team number with 4-6 others (Doubront, Cook, Aceves, Tazawa, Miller & Albers). He was significantly worse with 5 of 16 (Lester, Buch, Atchison, Padilla, Melancon). 

     

     

    Moon, I think you're right that we can compete next year, but I don't exactly trust the FO to get the RIGHT guys as free agents, no big contracts, just young guys soon to bloom.  It's all a matter of degree but I would rather have our best young players come up a little early than spring gazillions for Josh Hamilton who I think would not be productive for our long term health.  But I'm afraid some of this FO might "want to make a splash" to"keep the park filled up."

    I think the FO will make one big splash signing or trade, and then I hope they make smaller deals and signings that are geared towards the long run. I'd like to see us trade almost all of our Free-Agents-To-Be and some of the players who will be FAs after 2014. Stockpile prospects and possibly make a couple 3 or 4 for 1 deals to improve our young players in quality not quantity.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    In response to Critter23's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Moon, I really like your evaluation of players above.  I think you're right on.  I would like to comment that if Aceves is traded, I'll be fine with it.  But if someone like Leyland is here, I think he would be a great middle reliever and not trouble.  Long term no nonsense baseball career guys have dealt with eccentrics like this before and would be able to make him a good citizen in my view.  You're right though, if the right trade came along, almost anybody here is expendable.  Who is sacred?  For me, honestly the only guy I wouldn't trade is Pedey because he has the fire and grit that I think we want the young guys to emulate.  I would trade Lester and Buch if we got the right guys back.

    [/QUOTE]

    I really like Aceves as a long or middle relief guy. I would not move him to starter as some have argued. I think he can turn it around, especially if we get a new manager, but I also think many MLb teams would want him on their team. Since he has 2 more years of team control, I look at his value to a team looking to seriously contend in 2013 and 2014 as more value than to us who may be lucky to seriously contend by 2014. If we don't get good return: we'd obviously keep him.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    Was hoping Buch could help knock the Yanks out of the playoffs or at least into a play-in game.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Critter23. Show Critter23's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    It's hard to see these losses night after night, especially to the NYY, but this is the road to the future and getting rid of all that salary which I still think is a miracle.  It's still amazing to me there was a team out there willing to take that salary.  Moon, I remember in the euphoria (sort of) of signing CC, you were warning about the economic implications of handcuffing the RS.  How true it became...

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look At 2013: Part I

    It's hard to see these losses night after night, especially to the NYY, but this is the road to the future and getting rid of all that salary which I still think is a miracle. It's still amazing to me there was a team out there willing to take that salary. Moon, I remember in the euphoria (sort of) of signing CC, you were warning about the economic implications of handcuffing the RS. How true it became...

     

    Yes, I said the CC signing would "cripple our budget for 7 years", but amazingly we were able to get out from under not only his crippling deal, but Beckett's and Punto's as well. Losing AGon hurts, but in financial terms, AGon was neither overpaid or underpaid by too much, and replacing his value with the $22M/yr he costs us should not be impossible to do.

     

Share