Contracts

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

    Re: Contracts

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Qhether anyone likes it or not, FA contract prices are going way up in price. 12M doesnt get you what it used to nowadays. It is what it is. I believe it will get worse as it will be the one place that teams can freely spend their $$ on. Draft signings and qualifying offers are in place now. No more paying huge bonus money for prospects to sign. no more type A or B FA. Scouting and developing our own talent will be vital going forward.

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess we should have seen it coming and spent big last winter, instead.

    [/QUOTE]


    We had no $$$ last year TO spend...

    [/QUOTE]

    As we thought at the time, no, but "the trade" put us under the luxury limit. 

    I know hindisght is almost always 20-20. (I say almost because there is always softy, who has a hindsight as bad as his foresight.)

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Contracts

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     I was fooled by CC

    Folks, post of the year! The Stooge is fooled again.

    [/QUOTE]

    Look clown. You wanted CC leading off instead of Ells in 2011. You wanted Ells on the bench.

    When CC was signed I said the contract would "cripple us for 7 years". I said he was nothing more than a "glorified platoon player" that should be benched vs LHPs with a team like the Sox. You insisted he lead off even vs LHPs.

    I was "fooled" by his defense. He won the GG you so strongly defend with Jete. He looked good on D when he played us, even in Fenway. 

    Yes, I was wrong about his defense, but man enough to admit my mistake. You should try that sometime. Oh wait, I forgot: you never make mistakes.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Contracts

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Look, stooge, I said to avoid Crawford like the plague. End of story.

    [/QUOTE]

    Stop pretending you were the only one.

    Admit you thought he was good enough to lead off on the Sox, even against LHPs in 2011. This proves you thought he was better than I and many other posters here.

    After all, you claimed the Rays would be crippled by losing CC from their roster. (BTW, they went from averaging 90 wins from 2009-2010 to 90.5 wins from 2011-2012.)

    I do remember all your lengthy posts about CC being such a horrible fielder that you wanted him moved to RF!  (Talk about the ultimate stooge suggestion.)

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Contracts

    The emperor with no clothes.

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

    Re: Contracts

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I was the only one who said to avoid him like the plague. The rest were cheerleading or, after the fact, saying it was "an overpay".

    [/QUOTE]


    You wanted him to leadoff...Dumb idea.

    I didnt want him here either. I wanted Werth instead if we were to choose between the two. We needed a RHH and CC was redundant as we already had Ells.

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

    Re: Contracts

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I was the only one who said to avoid him like the plague. The rest were cheerleading or, after the fact, saying it was "an overpay".

    [/QUOTE]


    You wanted him to leadoff...Dumb idea.

    I didnt want him here either. I wanted Werth instead if we were to choose between the two. We needed a RHH and CC was redundant as we already had Ells.

    [/QUOTE]

    I never wanted CC either, and softy knows that. He loves to pump up his fragile ego by pretending he's the only one who holds certain positions. I too thought Werth was a better fit not just because hitting RH;d, but because he could play RF, however, I said $13M x 5 was my top offer.

    softy wanted CC to lead off and play RF. Now, he acts like he knew all along that CC was a poor fielder. What a clown!

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Contracts

    In response to BannedOnTheRun-1918's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I do not know NL player's that well, esp on defense. I was fooled by CC, and I saw him play a lot.

    [/QUOTE]


    You get fooled quite often, just look at your predictions for where the bosox would finish the past few years.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, but at least I don't run and hide. I face my mistakes and make adjustments.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Contracts

    In response to parhunter55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think that AGon is still one of the top veteran 1Bmen and top run producers in all of baseball and he is paid like one.  Not an overpay in any way, IME.  But Crawford looks like a clear overpay.  Upton has very similar skill set, with perhaps less speed but with definitely more power.  And yet he is getting paid for 2 fewer years and 6 million less per, at a similar age.  What was Theo thinking?  And, Crawford was never better than a square peg fit for the Sox.  If he had not been signed, AGon would probably still be playing for the Sox, and 2012 would not have been year when Ben's hands were tied, economically speaking, from bringing in the pitching that was so desperately needed to compete.  Maybe even Theo does not leave and Bobby V is never hired! 

    I say this while acknowledging that, 1) I supported the CC signing once it happened, even though it was an obvious overpay; and 2) I still think that Crawford will play up to about a 15 million per level over the next 3 or 4 seasons, and when Ellsbury leaves for greener pastures Crawford will be missed, in much the same way Crsip is now missed.

    [/QUOTE]


    Par

    I won't try to argue the overpay and the misfit toy that was Crawford. I too supported the signing and still remember saying wow! When the news broke...The fact that he was also hindered by injuries only exacerbated what was a bad signing...water under the bridge he's LA problem now. While Crawford was overpaid and never should have been signed to begin with. The Sox bigger issue with payroll entering last season had more to do with the money owed to and the manpower lost in Lackey & Matsusaka. Tying up some 25M in payroll, more importantly was the cause and effect of losing 400 innings from your rotation had on the overall organizational depth.

    Add to that the longterm deal and fiscal liability that was Beckett, paying 17M per for a guy that was supposed to be the staff leader, who had not finished a season strong since 2007 and it's not hard to see why they had to blow it up and start anew. While I agree that Gonzalez was and is paid comensurate with his abilities based on like contracts. Clearly something was amiss with the guy, who never was comfortable wearing the leadership hat and might well thrive in LA were he's not being asked to be the guy that stirs the drink...

     

     

Share