Red Sox in "striking distance" of Mike Napoli, Nick Swisher, and Cody Ross

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to hodgkinsfl1's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Yes, but $5M for someone that won't even platoon vs LHPs is not going to happen.



    What do you care what they pay?  it is not coming out of your pocket
    .



    Opportunity cost.  What if we are unwilling to budge from 3/36 for Naps and then see him sign for 3/40.  I'd rather have Naps at 3/40 than gomes at 2/10.



    Very different this year Drewski.  They won't let a player they covet walk over 4 million dollars.  Its all about the "length" of the contract this year.  They very likely won't get too close to luxury tax...

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to jasko2248's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to hodgkinsfl1's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Yes, but $5M for someone that won't even platoon vs LHPs is not going to happen.



    What do you care what they pay?  it is not coming out of your pocket
    .



    Opportunity cost.  What if we are unwilling to budge from 3/36 for Naps and then see him sign for 3/40.  I'd rather have Naps at 3/40 than gomes at 2/10.



    Very different this year Drewski.  They won't let a player they covet walk over 4 million dollars.  Its all about the "length" of the contract this year.  They very won't get too close to luxury tax...



    I hope you're right; however, if the Sox are holding firm at 3/36 and Naps is asking for 4/45, I would argue that the difference between the two deals is 6.25M.  Napoli will be able to DH against lefties in yr 4 of the deal, so we will realize 5M in value in year 4.  This means that the 11.25M salary in yr 4 is a 6.25M overpay.  Probably even less, as salaries continue to rise.  So if we dont get Naps because we are unwilling to budge from 3/36 and see him sign for 4/45 , I will be furious.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Red Sox in

    Then after losing 4 years of Naps to save 6.25M four years from now, they will turn around and pay 10 M for one year of the next Bobby Jenks.  

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    Then after losing 4 years of Naps to save 6.25M four years from now, they will turn around and pay 10 M for one year of the next Bobby Jenks.  


    Haha...good point

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

      I agree with your points on the extra year scenarios.

    If extra year is:

    Third year for Cody, Fourth year for Naps, fourth year for Swish:

    yes to Naps, yes to Swish, maybe to Cody.

    Third year for Cody, Fourth year for Naps, fifth for Swish

    Yes to Cody, yes to Naps, no to Swish

    Dont lose these guys because we are unwilling to go extra year.  Swish and Naps are both very good ball players. 

    Trade for a pitcher.




     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Red Sox in

    I like Ross - but I don't want any of these three guys signed.

     

     

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    Those complaining about we need more pitching, the Red Sox are probably just taking care of the lineup first that way they can use the rest of the offseason including the winter meetings perhaps to take care of the need of pitching.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to JohnnyLefty's comment:

    Those complaining about we need more pitching, the Red Sox are probably just taking care of the lineup first that way they can use the rest of the offseason including the winter meetings perhaps to take care of the need of pitching.




    Interesting theory.

    Of course it is just as likely that the Red Sox have no plan.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

    In response to JohnnyLefty's comment:

    Those complaining about we need more pitching, the Red Sox are probably just taking care of the lineup first that way they can use the rest of the offseason including the winter meetings perhaps to take care of the need of pitching.

    Interesting theory.

    Of course it is just as likely that the Red Sox have no plan.




    No isn't. It is extremely unlikey that they are running with their heads chopped off.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Red Sox in

    I didn't say heads chopped off - I said no plan.

    They sign a catcher (Ross), a less than avg OF (Gomes) - even though the one thing the team has plenty of is catchers and less than avg OFs.

    They are now desperately after another C/DH and it appears they are targeting two more less than avg OF/DH types even though they already signed their DH.

    David Wright just signed an extension but the sox are doing nothing to lock up tehir most talented player (ellsbury).  Every other team seems to lock up their stars long term - except for the Pirates and Red Sox that is.

    There is no vision for 2013 and no pitching - and now they are floating their best starter for PROSPECTS?

    That is not a plan - that is a disaster. 

     

     

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

    I didn't say heads chopped off - I said no plan.

    They sign a catcher (Ross), a less than avg OF (Gomes) - even though the one thing the team has plenty of is catchers and less than avg OFs.

    They are now desperately after another C/DH and it appears they are targeting two more less than avg OF/DH types even though they already signed their DH.

    David Wright just signed an extension but the sox are doing nothing to lock up tehir most talented player (ellsbury).  Every other team seems to lock up their stars long term - except for the Pirates and Red Sox that is.

    There is no vision for 2013 and no pitching - and now they are floating their best starter for PROSPECTS?

    That is not a plan - that is a disaster. 

     

     




    they've been trying to lock jacoby up for years now! he is a Boras client and will hit FA regardless of how much we try to extend him for.....

    your foolishness rivals some of the dumbest posters on these boards..

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

    It means we're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

    Because none of these are starting pitchers, which they've needed since late 2011.




    Make that 2008

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    Let's look at a potential lineup.  Say we get Swish and Napoli for 4 years, and Ross for 3.  Not what I'd prefer, but I'd still be happy about it.  I don't think it will happen, but I feel we could be competitive for a Wild Card spot if we made those moves.  

    Vs RHP: CF Ellsbury, 2B Pedroia, DH Ortiz, 1B Napoli, LF Swisher, 3B Middlebrooks, RF Ross, C Salty, SS Iglesias

    Vs LHP: CF Ellsbury, 2B Pedroia, DH Ortiz, C Napoli, 1B Swisher, 3B Middlebrooks, RF Ross, LF Gomes, SS Iglesias

    We can swing Lavarnway and others (i.e Morales, Kailish, etc) for a #2/3 pitcher, and I think we'd be pretty solid.  This also leaves room for Bradley Jr (assuming Ellsbury walks) and Brentz (OF/DH platoon when Ortiz retires), who are the most projectable Minor Leaguers at the time.  Swihart has a spot at Catcher over Salty when he is ready.  So this could work well as a bridge to Swihart, Brentz, Bradley, Boegarts, and Cecchini in 2015-16, when they will all hopefully be ready.  But there is time to fix that.  If Boegarts can manage to stay at SS, we could be looking at this in Swish and Napoli's last year:

    C: Swihart, 1B: Middlebrooks, 2B: Pedroia, 3B: Cechinni, SS: Boegarts, LF: Swisher, CF: Bradley, RF: Brentz, DH: Napoli.

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    Yeah. I'd take all three. I don't anticipate the Sox winning the WS next year, so what the heck, do it and see what happens. Of the three, Swisher is the one I'd least miss if the Sox didn't sign him. I'd go 1. Ross, 2. Napoli, 3. Swisher. Although, that being said, Swisher does have a ceratain appeal because of his personality, and mostly because he's going to be REALLY motivated to perform, especially to stick it to the Yankees. Hmmmmmmm, let me think about this for a while.....

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Red Sox in

    who is going to pitch?

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to georom4's comment:

    who is going to pitch?




    Clemens and Boyd

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    Of course it is just as likely that the Red Sox have no plan.

    Or, it could be that the plan is to improve two areas that were areas of concern last year - OBP and clubhouse atmosphere.  I see that as a very big step in the right direction.

    OTOH, it seems like there has been less of an emphasis on defense so far (David Ross being the exception), and this troubles me.

     

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

    I didn't say heads chopped off - I said no plan.

    They sign a catcher (Ross), a less than avg OF (Gomes) - even though the one thing the team has plenty of is catchers and less than avg OFs.

    They are now desperately after another C/DH and it appears they are targeting two more less than avg OF/DH types even though they already signed their DH.

    David Wright just signed an extension but the sox are doing nothing to lock up tehir most talented player (ellsbury).  Every other team seems to lock up their stars long term - except for the Pirates and Red Sox that is.

    There is no vision for 2013 and no pitching - and now they are floating their best starter for PROSPECTS?

    That is not a plan - that is a disaster. 

     

     




     

    1.  The Sox certainly do sign their players to extension. Lester, Buchholz, Pedroia and Youkilis being prime examples.  Did Wright sign his?  I have not heard that reported yet.

     

    2.  There is no evidence the Sox are dangling Lester for prospects.  The fact that James Shields was also in the rumor strongly hints that KC was making proposals.

     

    3. Players like Ross and Gomes were signed because they are the kind of players who sign early.  They do not expect and will not receive many offers.  The big names RARELY sign before December.

     

    4.  As has been pointed out to you numerous times, Ellsbury hired Scott Boras.  EVERYONE on planet EArth is familiar with Boras' tactics - hit free agency and get the biggest deal possbile. Bushmen on the Kulahari are familiar with this strategy.  Certainly every player in MLB knows it, and expects it hen they hire Boras. I have no idea why you are not familair with it.  Only two of hisclients signed extensions early - Carlos Gonzalez, who received the largest deal ever for a player with 2 years of service time, and Jwered Weaver, who went against Boras' advice and insisted on one.  Has Ellsbury done this?  Because otherwise, when a player hires boras, he knows what he is doing...

     

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    They won't let a player they covet walk over 4 million dollars. Its all about the "length" of the contract this year.

    I agree, it's more about the years than it is about the dollars.  That 4th year for Napoli seems to be the hold up on him signing anywhere.

    While Gomes is being overpaid, it's a lot less damaging to overpay a player for 2 years than it is to overpay a player for 4 years.

     

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

    I didn't say heads chopped off - I said no plan.

    They sign a catcher (Ross), a less than avg OF (Gomes) - even though the one thing the team has plenty of is catchers and less than avg OFs.

    They are now desperately after another C/DH and it appears they are targeting two more less than avg OF/DH types even though they already signed their DH.

    David Wright just signed an extension but the sox are doing nothing to lock up tehir most talented player (ellsbury).  Every other team seems to lock up their stars long term - except for the Pirates and Red Sox that is.

    There is no vision for 2013 and no pitching - and now they are floating their best starter for PROSPECTS?

    That is not a plan - that is a disaster. 

     

     




     

    1.  The Sox certainly do sign their players to extension. Lester, Buchholz, Pedroia and Youkilis being prime examples.  Did Wright sign his?  I have not heard that reported yet.

     

    2.  There is no evidence the Sox are dangling Lester for prospects.  The fact that James Shields was also in the rumor strongly hints that KC was making proposals.

     

    3. Players like Ross and Gomes were signed because they are the kind of players who sign early.  They do not expect and will not receive many offers.  The big names RARELY sign before December.

     

    4.  As has been pointed out to you numerous times, Ellsbury hired Scott Boras.  EVERYONE on planet EArth is familiar with Boras' tactics - hit free agency and get the biggest deal possbile. Bushmen on the Kulahari are familiar with this strategy.  Certainly every player in MLB knows it, and expects it hen they hire Boras. I have no idea why you are not familair with it.  Only two of hisclients signed extensions early - Carlos Gonzalez, who received the largest deal ever for a player with 2 years of service time, and Jwered Weaver, who went against Boras' advice and insisted on one.  Has Ellsbury done this?  Because otherwise, when a player hires boras, he knows what he is doing...

     



    LOL!!!!!

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    Yes, that bushmen line amused me too.  Good one notin.

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to redsoxfan28's comment:

    JIM BOWDEN @JimBowdenESPNxm

    RedSox appear to be within striking distance of Swisher,Napoli & CRoss but in all 3 scenarios not giving extra yr that's holding them back

    what does that mean?



    I hope Boston ONLY signs Ross. 

     

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to georom4's comment:

    who is going to pitch?




    It is a little absurd to be digesting the news about Napoli, Ross, Ross, and Swisher without news about how the pitching will be improved. Thats really the only thing that matters right now, and as far as I know, we have made no progress so far to improve our pitching. Hard to get excited about all the mediocre position players in the news without news about obtaining new pitchers.

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to mef429's comment:

    In response to Schumpeters-Ghost's comment:

    I didn't say heads chopped off - I said no plan.

    They sign a catcher (Ross), a less than avg OF (Gomes) - even though the one thing the team has plenty of is catchers and less than avg OFs.

    They are now desperately after another C/DH and it appears they are targeting two more less than avg OF/DH types even though they already signed their DH.

    David Wright just signed an extension but the sox are doing nothing to lock up tehir most talented player (ellsbury).  Every other team seems to lock up their stars long term - except for the Pirates and Red Sox that is.

    There is no vision for 2013 and no pitching - and now they are floating their best starter for PROSPECTS?

    That is not a plan - that is a disaster. 

     

     




    they've been trying to lock jacoby up for years now! he is a Boras client and will hit FA regardless of how much we try to extend him for.....

    your foolishness rivals some of the dumbest posters on these boards..




    Nothing will satisfy SG. His one of the consistent "sky is falling" types...To even suggest that this team has no plan shows that you cant take him seriously...

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

    Re: Red Sox in

    In response to titletownfan's comment:

    Let's look at a potential lineup.  Say we get Swish and Napoli for 4 years, and Ross for 3.  Not what I'd prefer, but I'd still be happy about it.  I don't think it will happen, but I feel we could be competitive for a Wild Card spot if we made those moves.  

    Vs RHP: CF Ellsbury, 2B Pedroia, DH Ortiz, 1B Napoli, LF Swisher, 3B Middlebrooks, RF Ross, C Salty, SS Iglesias

    Vs LHP: CF Ellsbury, 2B Pedroia, DH Ortiz, C Napoli, 1B Swisher, 3B Middlebrooks, RF Ross, LF Gomes, SS Iglesias

    We can swing Lavarnway and others (i.e Morales, Kailish, etc) for a #2/3 pitcher, and I think we'd be pretty solid.  This also leaves room for Bradley Jr (assuming Ellsbury walks) and Brentz (OF/DH platoon when Ortiz retires), who are the most projectable Minor Leaguers at the time.  Swihart has a spot at Catcher over Salty when he is ready.  So this could work well as a bridge to Swihart, Brentz, Bradley, Boegarts, and Cecchini in 2015-16, when they will all hopefully be ready.  But there is time to fix that.  If Boegarts can manage to stay at SS, we could be looking at this in Swish and Napoli's last year:

    C: Swihart, 1B: Middlebrooks, 2B: Pedroia, 3B: Cechinni, SS: Boegarts, LF: Swisher, CF: Bradley, RF: Brentz, DH: Napoli.




    WMB at 1b? Interesting...

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share