Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    Our big signings have been Dempster, Victorino, Napoli and Drew.  Drew for 9.5 million$ and the other for about 13 million per.

     

    Look at these contracts:

    Greinke $147 Mil

    Guthrie $25 over 3 years

    Hamilton 125 Mil

    Haren 13 mil over 1

    Hunter 26 over 2

    Jackson 52 over 4

    Kuroda 15 over 1

    Berkman 10 over 1

    Petitte 12 over 1

    Ross 26 over 3

    Sanchez 80 over 5

    Scutoro 20 over 3

    Youk 12 over 1

     

    I mean REALLY think about it.  Yes, we paid a HECK of a lot of money for what we got but which contract above is any better then the ones the Sox gave out??  I would venture NONE of them.  In fact I think we have better players for better money.  Yes..our players have question marks but name ONE PLAYER on that list that doesn not have as many question marks...   really think it's time to stop complaining about the money BC signed these players at and actually look at the facts.  The Market is such that teams have to overpay no matter what.  That's what we did...that's what all teams did.  I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

     

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    Good post, and you're right. While the contracts given out this winter to guys like Napoli, Victorino, and Dempster might seem excessive, looking around the league it's tough to find ANY free agent signing that doesn't look like an overpay. I think some posters just need to get their heads around the fact that the going rate for free agent talent has gone up (and I include myself in that category).

    What I find interesting is that quite a few (not all) of the posters who think our free agents were overpaid seem to think we should have outbid other teams to sign the even bigger, nine-digit fish. $27 million for Dempster might be too much, but better than $150 million-plus for Greinke, IMO.

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

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    Our big signings have been Dempster, Victorino, Napoli and Drew.  Drew for 9.5 million$ and the other for about 13 million per.

     

    Look at these contracts:

    Greinke $147 Mil

    Guthrie $25 over 3 years

    Hamilton 125 Mil

    Haren 13 mil over 1

    Hunter 26 over 2

    Jackson 52 over 4

    Kuroda 15 over 1

    Berkman 10 over 1

    Petitte 12 over 1

    Ross 26 over 3

    Sanchez 80 over 5

    Scutoro 20 over 3

    Youk 12 over 1

     

    I mean REALLY think about it.  Yes, we paid a HECK of a lot of money for what we got but which contract above is any better then the ones the Sox gave out??  I would venture NONE of them.  In fact I think we have better players for better money.  Yes..our players have question marks but name ONE PLAYER on that list that doesn not have as many question marks...   really think it's time to stop complaining about the money BC signed these players at and actually look at the facts.  The Market is such that teams have to overpay no matter what.  That's what we did...that's what all teams did.  I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

     



    I agree.


    The Sox overpaid for each of the free agents that were signed.

    But, that's the name of the game, in free agency.

    I'm satified with the signings because none of them are long term contracts.

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

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:

    Good post, and you're right. While the contracts given out this winter to guys like Napoli, Victorino, and Dempster might seem excessive, looking around the league it's tough to find ANY free agent signing that doesn't look like an overpay. I think some posters just need to get their heads around the fact that the going rate for free agent talent has gone up (and I include myself in that category).

    What I find interesting is that quite a few (not all) of the posters who think our free agents were overpaid seem to think we should have outbid other teams to sign the even bigger, nine-digit fish. $27 million for Dempster might be too much, but better than $150 million-plus for Greinke, IMO.



    Yup. Doesn't make much sense.

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

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    One you missed:

    BJ Upton (career OPS 758) 75 over 5

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

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    Our big signings have been Dempster, Victorino, Napoli and Drew.  Drew for 9.5 million$ and the other for about 13 million per.

     

    Look at these contracts:

    Greinke $147 Mil

    Guthrie $25 over 3 years

    Hamilton 125 Mil

    Haren 13 mil over 1

    Hunter 26 over 2

    Jackson 52 over 4

    Kuroda 15 over 1

    Berkman 10 over 1

    Petitte 12 over 1

    Ross 26 over 3

    Sanchez 80 over 5

    Scutoro 20 over 3

    Youk 12 over 1

     

    I mean REALLY think about it.  Yes, we paid a HECK of a lot of money for what we got but which contract above is any better then the ones the Sox gave out??  I would venture NONE of them.  In fact I think we have better players for better money.  Yes..our players have question marks but name ONE PLAYER on that list that doesn not have as many question marks...   really think it's time to stop complaining about the money BC signed these players at and actually look at the facts.  The Market is such that teams have to overpay no matter what.  That's what we did...that's what all teams did.  I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

     

     

     




    I would rather have seen Kalish or Bradley playing OF than Victorino for three years. In three years its possible we could compete again for a ring and Victorino will still be here like week old fish.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    Our big signings have been Dempster, Victorino, Napoli and Drew.  Drew for 9.5 million$ and the other for about 13 million per.

     

    Look at these contracts:

    Greinke $147 Mil

    Guthrie $25 over 3 years

    Hamilton 125 Mil

    Haren 13 mil over 1

    Hunter 26 over 2

    Jackson 52 over 4

    Kuroda 15 over 1

    Berkman 10 over 1

    Petitte 12 over 1

    Ross 26 over 3

    Sanchez 80 over 5

    Scutoro 20 over 3

    Youk 12 over 1

     

    I mean REALLY think about it.  Yes, we paid a HECK of a lot of money for what we got but which contract above is any better then the ones the Sox gave out??  I would venture NONE of them.  In fact I think we have better players for better money.  Yes..our players have question marks but name ONE PLAYER on that list that doesn not have as many question marks...   really think it's time to stop complaining about the money BC signed these players at and actually look at the facts.  The Market is such that teams have to overpay no matter what.  That's what we did...that's what all teams did.  I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

     

     

     



    Nice post.  I would've been ok with the Sox giving Hunter & Kuroda those deals, but it seemed pretty clear that Boston wasn't even a top 3 option for either player, so they wouldn't have been able to sign those 2 guys anyway.  I don't like any other deal on that list, at least for the Sox.

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

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    Our big signings have been Dempster, Victorino, Napoli and Drew.  Drew for 9.5 million$ and the other for about 13 million per.

     

    Look at these contracts:

    Greinke $147 Mil

    Guthrie $25 over 3 years

    Hamilton 125 Mil

    Haren 13 mil over 1

    Hunter 26 over 2

    Jackson 52 over 4

    Kuroda 15 over 1

    Berkman 10 over 1

    Petitte 12 over 1

    Ross 26 over 3

    Sanchez 80 over 5

    Scutoro 20 over 3

    Youk 12 over 1

     

    I mean REALLY think about it.  Yes, we paid a HECK of a lot of money for what we got but which contract above is any better then the ones the Sox gave out??  I would venture NONE of them.  In fact I think we have better players for better money.  Yes..our players have question marks but name ONE PLAYER on that list that doesn not have as many question marks...   really think it's time to stop complaining about the money BC signed these players at and actually look at the facts.  The Market is such that teams have to overpay no matter what.  That's what we did...that's what all teams did.  I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

     

     

     




    I would rather have seen Kalish or Bradley playing OF than Victorino for three years. In three years its possible we could compete again for a ring and Victorino will still be here like week old fish.



    The good thing about hiring Victorino at 13 per over three, is that these options are not mutually exclusive.  Its not a big hit if Shane is riding pine in two years.  In the meantime, we don't know if Kalish can play or not.  If he is ready, he can platoon with Victorino.  As far as bradly, he is, at the very least, a year away.  

    I think the OP speaks to this issue.  The salary looks glossy, so the illusion is that Victorino was brought in to be the big time starter over his contract.  But, he is just a glorified platoon player.  Many have dismnissed him as such here since he signed.  But, it is true.  And the front office knew this when they signed him.

    He is a place holder.  An expensive placeholder.  but a placeholder nonetheless.

    And a necessary one.  Many people have lovely notions about Kalish and Bradley.  But, both are far from good bets at the moment.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to SpacemanEephus's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    Our big signings have been Dempster, Victorino, Napoli and Drew.  Drew for 9.5 million$ and the other for about 13 million per.

     

    Look at these contracts:

    Greinke $147 Mil

    Guthrie $25 over 3 years

    Hamilton 125 Mil

    Haren 13 mil over 1

    Hunter 26 over 2

    Jackson 52 over 4

    Kuroda 15 over 1

    Berkman 10 over 1

    Petitte 12 over 1

    Ross 26 over 3

    Sanchez 80 over 5

    Scutoro 20 over 3

    Youk 12 over 1

     

    I mean REALLY think about it.  Yes, we paid a HECK of a lot of money for what we got but which contract above is any better then the ones the Sox gave out??  I would venture NONE of them.  In fact I think we have better players for better money.  Yes..our players have question marks but name ONE PLAYER on that list that doesn not have as many question marks...   really think it's time to stop complaining about the money BC signed these players at and actually look at the facts.  The Market is such that teams have to overpay no matter what.  That's what we did...that's what all teams did.  I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

     

     

     




    I would rather have seen Kalish or Bradley playing OF than Victorino for three years. In three years its possible we could compete again for a ring and Victorino will still be here like week old fish.



    The good thing about hiring Victorino at 13 per over three, is that these options are not mutually exclusive.  Its not a big hit if Shane is riding pine in two years.  In the meantime, we don't know if Kalish can play or not.  If he is ready, he can platoon with Victorino.  As far as bradly, he is, at the very least, a year away.  

    I think the OP speaks to this issue.  The salary looks glossy, so the illusion is that Victorino was brought in to be the big time starter over his contract.  But, he is just a glorified platoon player.  Many have dismnissed him as such here since he signed.  But, it is true.  And the front office knew this when they signed him.

    He is a place holder.  An expensive placeholder.  but a placeholder nonetheless.

    And a necessary one.  Many people have lovely notions about Kalish and Bradley.  But, both are far from good bets at the moment.




    In addition, if we had signed a one- or two-year player to plug in RF, I doubt it would have been someone who would have pleased all the fans. The Gomes and Drew signings got a backlash as well, even though they were shorter-term. The most attractive players just aren't getting one or two years right now, but some people aren't satisfied with anything less.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from NLU75. Show NLU75's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    Our big signings have been Dempster, Victorino, Napoli and Drew.  Drew for 9.5 million$ and the other for about 13 million per.

     

    Look at these contracts:

    Greinke $147 Mil

    Guthrie $25 over 3 years

    Hamilton 125 Mil

    Haren 13 mil over 1

    Hunter 26 over 2

    Jackson 52 over 4

    Kuroda 15 over 1

    Berkman 10 over 1

    Petitte 12 over 1

    Ross 26 over 3

    Sanchez 80 over 5

    Scutoro 20 over 3

    Youk 12 over 1

     

    I mean REALLY think about it.  Yes, we paid a HECK of a lot of money for what we got but which contract above is any better then the ones the Sox gave out??  I would venture NONE of them.  In fact I think we have better players for better money.  Yes..our players have question marks but name ONE PLAYER on that list that doesn not have as many question marks...   really think it's time to stop complaining about the money BC signed these players at and actually look at the facts.  The Market is such that teams have to overpay no matter what.  That's what we did...that's what all teams did.  I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

     

     

     




    I would rather have seen Kalish or Bradley playing OF than Victorino for three years. In three years its possible we could compete again for a ring and Victorino will still be here like week old fish.

    Hey Pumpsie I use to post on here years ago, I really like what Fred would post how is he doing


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to Kingface12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Our big signings have been Dempster, Victorino, Napoli and Drew.  Drew for 9.5 million$ and the other for about 13 million per.

     

    Look at these contracts:

    Greinke $147 Mil

    Guthrie $25 over 3 years

    Hamilton 125 Mil

    Haren 13 mil over 1

    Hunter 26 over 2

    Jackson 52 over 4

    Kuroda 15 over 1

    Berkman 10 over 1

    Petitte 12 over 1

    Ross 26 over 3

    Sanchez 80 over 5

    Scutoro 20 over 3

    Youk 12 over 1

     

      I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

    Disagree, this offseason should have been devoted to a total rebuild.  Because there were no elite FA like Manny or Sabathia, this was not the year to reload in FA.   Distressed sellers, make the best trade partners (Beckett, Pedro).

    On the list of FA, I would take Youk/Berkman at 1B over Napoli, Kuroda/Pettite over Dempster, and Hunter over Shane.

     

     

     




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

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    Disagree, this offseason should have been devoted to a total rebuild.  Because there were no elite FA like Manny or Sabathia, this was not the year to reload in FA.   Distressed sellers, make the best trade partners (Beckett, Pedro).

    On the list of FA, I would take Youk/Berkman at 1B over Napoli, Kuroda/Pettite over Dempster, and Hunter over Shane.



    Elite FA may be a dying breed.  Teams have more revenue from TV and more elite players will be locked up earlier.  Have you taken into account this shifting paradigm?

    As for Kuroda/Pettite/Hunter etc., as Mick Jagger said, you can't always get what you want.  These guys knew where they wanted to play and only an outrageous premium would have even got their attention...maybe.

     

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

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    Our big signings have been Dempster, Victorino, Napoli and Drew.  Drew for 9.5 million$ and the other for about 13 million per.

     

    Look at these contracts:

    Greinke $147 Mil

    Guthrie $25 over 3 years

    Hamilton 125 Mil

    Haren 13 mil over 1

    Hunter 26 over 2

    Jackson 52 over 4

    Kuroda 15 over 1

    Berkman 10 over 1

    Petitte 12 over 1

    Ross 26 over 3

    Sanchez 80 over 5

    Scutoro 20 over 3

    Youk 12 over 1

     

      I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

    Disagree, this offseason should have been devoted to a total rebuild.  Because there were no elite FA like Manny or Sabathia, this was not the year to reload in FA.   Distressed sellers, make the best trade partners (Beckett, Pedro).

    On the list of FA, I would take Youk/Berkman at 1B over Napoli, Kuroda/Pettite over Dempster, and Hunter over Shane.

     

     

     






    I agree that Kuroda would have been better than Dempster.  But who knows if that was a possibility.  By all reports he wanted to remain in pinstripes, and they gave him 15 mil to keep it at 1 year.  what was the asking price for him to change addresses?

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

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    I agree with your overall sentiment. I would have added Upton at 5-75, Swisher at 4-56, Broxton at 3-21,  Affeldt at  3-18 and Martin at 2-15 as being ugly contracts.

    With that being said, would have loved Kuroda or Haren's deals for the Red Sox. I would have held Victorino to something less then 13 million a year. Otrherwise, very happy with all the free agent signings and their contracts.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    Elite FA may be a dying breed.  Teams have more revenue from TV and more elite players will be locked up earlier.  Have you taken into account this shifting paradigm?  Yes HfX, as I have written before, the new CBA is part of the reason I would have liked to see the Sox make trades to stockpile more picks.  Theo's actions in part have forced the rules changes which now should make even big market teams accept rebulid phases.

    I agree that Kuroda would have been better than Dempster.  But who knows if that was a possibility.  By all reports he wanted to remain in pinstripes, and they gave him 15 mil to keep it at 1 year.  what was the asking price for him to change addresses?   Agreed Space, I was answering the OP's   (((I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  agree or disagree))))  question, but my preference for the Sox this offseason was, none of the above.  IMO the Sox FO has made a commercial decision (mediocrity), which pushes the next WS title further away.

     

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

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In light of the free agent contracts this offseason, these remaining contracts don't look quite as bad:

    Adrian Gonzalez, six years, $127 million

    Carl Crawford, five years, $102.5 million

    Josh Beckett, two years, $31.5 million

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

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In light of the free agent contracts this offseason, these remaining contracts don't look quite as bad:

    Adrian Gonzalez, six years, $127 million

    Carl Crawford, five years, $102.5 million

    Josh Beckett, two years, $31.5 million




    I agree. Not "quite as bad".  However, if they all play like they did last year for the rest of their contracts, they are all very bad contracts. Including AGon's.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to tom-uk's comment:

    Elite FA may be a dying breed.  Teams have more revenue from TV and more elite players will be locked up earlier.  Have you taken into account this shifting paradigm?  Yes HfX, as I have written before, the new CBA is part of the reason I would have liked to see the Sox make trades to stockpile more picks.  Theo's actions in part have forced the rules changes which now should make even big market teams accept rebulid phases.

    I agree that Kuroda would have been better than Dempster.  But who knows if that was a possibility.  By all reports he wanted to remain in pinstripes, and they gave him 15 mil to keep it at 1 year.  what was the asking price for him to change addresses?   Agreed Space, I was answering the OP's   (((I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  agree or disagree))))  question, but my preference for the Sox this offseason was, none of the above.  IMO the Sox FO has made a commercial decision (mediocrity), which pushes the next WS title further away.

     



    Why is the next WS further away?  The FO made a strategy decision, yes.  You call it mediocrity; I call it treading water.  In that strategy, they signed platoon player veterans to 1-3 year deals.  So, when any of the kids are ready to answer the bell, no problem, move over grizzled platoon vet.  And, when the free agent market looks good again a couple years down the road, the club has some flexibility.  And, its not like they could just "play the kids" and stockpile the money saved on payroll.  To me, treading water makes a lot of sense.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    While I understand that some of you would have preferred to have certain free agaents on that list then the ones we got...but the fact of the matter is...some of them DID NOT WANT to leave their current team or simply did not want to come to Boston.  I would have loved Kuroda...but it was Yankees or bust for him.  Youk was not going to come back and there is NO WAY we would pay him 12 million to.  Hunter wanted an immediate contender...etc.  Our top 2 prospects are Bradley and Bogaerts.  Neither of them are blocked by any player we just picked up.  Xander needs another year..he's 19, lets not throw the kid out there in this pressure cooker just yet!....Drew is signed for 1 year...no harm.  Bradley plays center....Ellsbury is here 1 more year...no harm there.  Kalish will be platooning with Gomes....he has NOT done enough to earn a full time position...so no harm there.  Face it people....NOBODY WORTH ANYTHING IS BEING BLOCKED....that is not a good excuse. In 3 years when these kids are coming into their own...we will have a ton of money coming off the books ready to rebuild and get role players for all of them.  I think some of you look too much at the now and do not look at the BIG picture.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    While I understand that some of you would have preferred to have certain free agaents on that list then the ones we got...but the fact of the matter is...some of them DID NOT WANT to leave their current team or simply did not want to come to Boston.  I would have loved Kuroda...but it was Yankees or bust for him.  Youk was not going to come back and there is NO WAY we would pay him 12 million to.  Hunter wanted an immediate contender...etc.  Our top 2 prospects are Bradley and Bogaerts.  Neither of them are blocked by any player we just picked up.  Xander needs another year..he's 19, lets not throw the kid out there in this pressure cooker just yet!....Drew is signed for 1 year...no harm.  Bradley plays center....Ellsbury is here 1 more year...no harm there.  Kalish will be platooning with Gomes....he has NOT done enough to earn a full time position...so no harm there.  Face it people....NOBODY WORTH ANYTHING IS BEING BLOCKED....that is not a good excuse. In 3 years when these kids are coming into their own...we will have a ton of money coming off the books ready to rebuild and get role players for all of them.  I think some of you look too much at the now and do not look at the BIG picture.




    +1

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to Kingface12's comment:

    While I understand that some of you would have preferred to have certain free agaents on that list then the ones we got...but the fact of the matter is...some of them DID NOT WANT to leave their current team or simply did not want to come to Boston.  I would have loved Kuroda...but it was Yankees or bust for him.  Youk was not going to come back and there is NO WAY we would pay him 12 million to.  Hunter wanted an immediate contender...etc.  Our top 2 prospects are Bradley and Bogaerts.  Neither of them are blocked by any player we just picked up.  Xander needs another year..he's 19, lets not throw the kid out there in this pressure cooker just yet!....Drew is signed for 1 year...no harm.  Bradley plays center....Ellsbury is here 1 more year...no harm there.  Kalish will be platooning with Gomes....he has NOT done enough to earn a full time position...so no harm there.  Face it people....NOBODY WORTH ANYTHING IS BEING BLOCKED....that is not a good excuse. In 3 years when these kids are coming into their own...we will have a ton of money coming off the books ready to rebuild and get role players for all of them.  I think some of you look too much at the now and do not look at the BIG picture.




    And the contracts signed this year can be easily moved if need be as they compare good to the deals being signed in todays MLB.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

     

    Why is the next WS further away?  The FO made a strategy decision, yes.  You call it mediocrity; I call it treading water.  In that strategy, they signed platoon player veterans to 1-3 year deals.  So, when any of the kids are ready to answer the bell, no problem, move over grizzled platoon vet.  And, when the free agent market looks good again a couple years down the road, the club has some flexibility.  And, its not like they could just "play the kids" and stockpile the money saved on payroll.  To me, treading water makes a lot of sense.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why is the next WS further away?

    My reasoning Space is backed up by the Vegas oddsmakers.  IMO a 2013 Sox WS is a pipe dream, I hope I am wrong and funny things can happen in sport.   

    The Sox should have unloaded Lester, Papi, Salty, Ellsbury, and any bullpen pitcher who will be a FA anytime soon.  The propects the Sox have look good on paper, adding 3 or 4 more would have increased the odds of developing a cost controlled core.  A rebuild would have made a WS win within the next decade a much more realistic possibility.

    Instead, LL has created a mediocre team for business reasons.  I have no concern about blocking prospects, I feel the half-hearted rebuild was the path the Mets took and they have been poor for 4 straight years. If enough of the 2012 under-performers (JL, CB, MN, SV, DP, JE, AA, DB, AB) rebound the 2013 team will be a PO contender.  Even then the pitching looks ill-suited to make a long PO run.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kingface12. Show Kingface12's posts

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

      In fact I think we have better players for better money.

    in fact, your comment is a meaningless opinion. What did you say about the last half a decade of one of the top two or three in money spent to get zero playoff wins.

      Yes..our players have question marks but name ONE PLAYER on that list that doesn not have as many question marks...  

    You have no clue about age, injury history and production median averages, fit and value. Red Sox middle management could use your approach to help them Big Labor hiring decisions, it couldn't be any more incompetent.

     really think it's time to stop complaining about the money BC signed these players at and actually look at the facts.  The Market is such that teams have to overpay no matter what.  That's what we did...that's what all teams did. 

    This kind of incompetence is how the Jenks and Crawfords end up on the payroll. The market is such that no team has to "overpay no matter what". Beltre was a great value and fit for the Red Sox. So was Ross, as a platoon OF'er.

    Value and fit is what a competent GM must be focused on, with patience and the ability to anticpate, plan ahead and understand the trade market. This is just another example of incompetent management failing to plan, anticipate and properly utilize the trade market, then desperately reacting to a pathetic FA class of big labor.

     I would take our players at their current signed contracts over ANY of the deals above.  Agree or disagree?

    Absurd!

     

    HAHA!!! Thanks for sharing your own 'meaningless opinion' with us.  It was riveting....  Unfortunately what you said makes no common sense...shocker.  It's baseball...not a perfect entity.  There will be good signing (Beltre, Ross)..there will be bad signing (Crawford and Jenks).  Had Jenks performed well you would be calling it a good value signing.  Crawford signing was dumb...too long too much cash, but to compare that signing with the ones we did simply shows your lack of knowledge as they are 2 completetly different contracts.  One COULD HAVE killed us for the next 5 years...the ones we have now gives us good players with more flexibility money wise.

     

    As for age/injury history and the rest of the garbage you spewed.... which players would you rather have?  Hunter? Kuroda? Hamilton? Youk? Scutoro?....Most of these players have the same issues you speak of.  Heck...if we listed to you we would have the amazing Gomez (minor league lifer) at first base.....there's a stellar solve!!

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




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

    Re: Are the Sox contracts REALLY that bad???

    It is good the team is sticking with 2 years for most of the new guys... they are not part of the future but stop-gaps only. Basically we over-pay to get the filler players.... with the absolute knowledge they won't weight the organization down past 2014.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share