1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bigpapa1977. Show Bigpapa1977's posts

    If we put them on waivers, would anyone take their contracts (players making over 5 mil)?

    Ellsbury - YES, worth the $$$

    Pedroia - YES, still worth 8 million

    Ortiz - YES, only a prorated portion of one year

    Gonzalez - I think YES, maybe the Cubs/Cardinals/Orioles?

    Crawford - NO, if he was being paid HALF of his current salary, you might not even have any takers

    Lester - YES, because of the potential to turn it around

    Matsuzaka - NO, always injured, might not play

    Lackey - NO, injured and performance

    Beckett - NO, injury potential and performance


    We have 65 million per year (55 million next year) or about 200 million total comitted to players that we couldn't trade for a bag of baseballs. 

    Interesting that Crawford is the only position player on the list. Maybe a good reason for the Sox to spend additional money/draft picks to develop pitchers.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

    Re: If we put them on waivers, would anyone take their contracts (players making over 5 mil)?

    Well, I've been saying for years that Beckett and Drew had contracts that no one else would have touched....And now you can add Crawford to that list.  Not sure about the others you mentioned - Dice K is only owed 5 million - a team just looking to get some innings in Aug and Sept (not necessarily for Post season) may take that and Lackey's contract is not that bad anymore (4 year/46 million)
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: If we put them on waivers, would anyone take their contracts (players making over 5 mil)?

    In Response to Re: If we put them on waivers, would anyone take their contracts (players making over 5 mil)?:
    [QUOTE]Well, I've been saying for years that Beckett and Drew had contracts that no one else would have touched....And now you can add Crawford to that list.  Not sure about the others you mentioned - Dice K is only owed 5 million - a team just looking to get some innings in Aug and Sept (not necessarily for Post season) may take that and Lackey's contract is not that bad anymore (4 year/46 million)
    Posted by andrewmitch[/QUOTE]

    with lackeys contract being extended for a year at the league min (due to the TJ clause in his contract) if he comes back and pitches well teams could really want him..
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: If we put them on waivers, would anyone take their contracts (players making over 5 mil)?

    Nobody took Manny when we put him on irrevocable waivers in 2003.

    No takers.

    The rest is history...as in 2 rings for the Sox.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bigpapa1977. Show Bigpapa1977's posts

    Re: If we put them on waivers, would anyone take their contracts (players making over 5 mil)?

    In Response to Re: If we put them on waivers, would anyone take their contracts (players making over 5 mil)?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: If we put them on waivers, would anyone take their contracts (players making over 5 mil)? : with lackeys contract being extended for a year at the league min (due to the TJ clause in his contract) if he comes back and pitches well teams could really want him..
    Posted by mef429[/QUOTE]

    I think that the operative words being 'if he pitches well'.  I also have trouble believing that John Lackey will actually be playing for the MLB minimum during any season.

    He originally signed a five-year deal, during 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 for a total $82.5 million.  He would have had two years and $30.5 million left on the contract.  Since he missed 2012 with TJ surgery, he is supposed to play in 2015 for the MLB minimum, correct? So it should be a three year, ~$31 million deal.

    Wouldn't Lackey just retire as opposed to playing the 2015 season for 'only' $500,000?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: If we put them on waivers, would anyone take their contracts (players making over 5 mil)?

    In a league where half the players are overpaid, and half the players are underpaid, it is not surprising that some of our players are overpaid.  You could pretty much say the same thing about any team.

    NYY-No one would touch ARod, Tex, Jeter,

    MN-Mauer, Morneau, Pavano, Liriano

    LAA-Pujols, Wells, Hunter, 

    And it is logical, if you think about.

    A-By virtue of outbidding everyone in BB for a particular player, you guarantee that no one would pick him up on waivers.

    B-FAs are generally less valuable each year.  If a player is worth $40M/4, and you pay him on a straight line, his real value, assuming he is past 27, is earlier in the contract, and not later.  So the $40M, assuming that is the perfect number, will not be worth $30M after his first year.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: If we put them on waivers, would anyone take their contracts (players making over 5 mil)?

    In Response to Re: If we put them on waivers, would anyone take their contracts (players making over 5 mil)?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: If we put them on waivers, would anyone take their contracts (players making over 5 mil)? : with lackeys contract being extended for a year at the league min (due to the TJ clause in his contract) if he comes back and pitches well teams could really want him..
    Posted by mef429[/QUOTE]

    Yup...Ive been saying this since they announced his TJS...If he pitches well next year, you deal him at the deadline, eat a few bucks and hes basically worth 10-11mm per for the next 3 years 13, 14, 15...At least then teams would negotiate...
     

Share