Shane Victorino

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    It's being reported that Victorino also has a four year offer. He is taking less to play for the Sox...

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

    Re: Shane Victorino


    There's also this...

    Jon Morosi @jonmorosi

    #RedSox may not be done making moves yet. They have interest in Yunel Escobar, source says.

    Wowzers. Imagine our clubhouse.

     

     

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to bgomez's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    There's also this...

    Jon Morosi ‏@jonmorosi

    #RedSox may not be done making moves yet. They have interest in Yunel Escobar, source says.

    Wowzers. Imagine our clubhouse.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    WHAT?!?!?!  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.  This cannot and must not be true.  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bt33. Show bt33's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    have no problem with victorino filling an outfield spot instead of ross, though I think swisher would have been a better call, but if the reports are true they are WAY overpaying this guy. 2 years at 8 million would seem like what you'd want to give him. just don't understand this at all. i actually think overpaying in order to get shorter term deals is a solid philosophy, but this is crazy. this guys 32 years old and relies on his legs. they must really feel there is no shot at ellsbury being here (and/or are already plannig to move him) because nothing else makes sense (not sure it makes sense even given that, but...). at 12.5 for 3 or whatever it is I'd much rather give ross 24 for 3 (or 18 for 2 or something) or try to land hamilton for 4 at 90 or 5 for 110 or something (not that this would get it done). i guess the clock is ticking and they need an outfielder and perhaps felt like they didn't want to or couldn't get swisher and hamilton and didn't want to lose this guy. just seems like a real stretch and the kind of salary that throws off your whole structure. if you're going to give him top dollar why do you have to go an extra year also?

    thought napoli was a poor substitute for laroche at that money (though of course no draft pick loss), and they certainly overpayed - napoli would seem to have made much sense at 2 for 20 or 22, but they need some talent and I see that they gave him a few more million per and a third year (as he wanted 4) in order to make the team better. still, with gomes and napoli you weaken yourself defensively... 

    one thing is apparent - they are defnitely focused on players they consider to be good locker room guys, and this is not a bad thing. I guess in the end if they are the right guys what difference does an extra few million per year for a handful of players mean in the larger scheme of things? still, seems like they are reaching, and that usually backfires. 

     

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to bt33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    have no problem with victorino filling an outfield spot instead of ross, though I think swisher would have been a better call, but if the reports are true they are WAY overpaying this guy. 2 years at 8 million would seem like what you'd want to give him. just don't understand this at all. i actually think overpaying in order to get shorter term deals is a solid philosophy, but this is crazy. this guys 32 years old and relies on his legs. they must really feel there is no shot at ellsbury being here (and/or are already plannig to move him) because nothing else makes sense (not sure it makes sense even given that, but...). at 12.5 for 3 or whatever it is I'd much rather give ross 24 for 3 (or 18 for 2 or something) or try to land hamilton for 4 at 90 or 5 for 110 or something (not that this would get it done). i guess the clock is ticking and they need an outfielder and perhaps felt like they didn't want to or couldn't get swisher and hamilton and didn't want to lose this guy. just seems like a real stretch and the kind of salary that throws off your whole structure. if you're going to give him top dollar why do you have to go an extra year also?

    thought napoli was a poor substitute for laroche at that money (though of course no draft pick loss), and they certainly overpayed - napoli would seem to have made much sense at 2 for 20 or 22, but they need some talent and I see that they gave him a few more million per and a third year (as he wanted 4) in order to make the team better. still, with gomes and napoli you weaken yourself defensively... 

    one thing is apparent - they are defnitely focused on players they consider to be good locker room guys, and this is not a bad thing. I guess in the end if they are the right guys what difference does an extra few million per year for a handful of players mean in the larger scheme of things? still, seems like they are reaching, and that usually backfires. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    ...which is why Victorino is a better choice than Swish.  

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    Victorino can't hit.  So the Red Sox think that Victorino is a better option than Ross? 

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    Victorino seems to be declining a bit, seems like a lot of money, but the Sox have the money to spend. Hopefully he can improve this year...

     

    Also, wonder what Jerry Sands will bring to the Sox next year. Wonder if he'll start in Pawtucket or play the bench with the Sox. Would be awesome if he panned out.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    done deal for Victorino 3/39

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to bgomez's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    There's also this...

    Jon Morosi ‏@jonmorosi

    #RedSox may not be done making moves yet. They have interest in Yunel Escobar, source says.

    Wowzers. Imagine our clubhouse.

    [/QUOTE]


    WTF?!?  There is a reason why Toronto got rid of him. 

    Cherington should be stalking McCarthy and his agent instead.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    Now, please do something about the pitching...

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to bgomez's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Gordon Edes ‏@GordonEdes

    Red Sox in "driver's seat" for Victorino, baseball source says. "Nothing done yet, but getting close,'' source says.

     

    I think that he is a fine addition, but a bit of an overpay for him.

    [/QUOTE]

    Now where have I heard that before?  Oh yeah, just 10,000 times the past few weeks. :-)

     

     

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    Seems like a lot of money for a guy coming off a a .255/.320OBP season and his best seasons were 3-5 years ago.

    I'd like him at about 1/2-2/3 of that money.  He is a switch hitter but his spilts are huge.  He hit .230 from the Left side last year.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to Thesemenarecowards' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems like a lot of money for a guy coming off a a .255/.320OBP season and his best seasons were 3-5 years ago.

    I'd like him at about 1/2-2/3 of that money.  He is a switch hitter but his spilts are huge.  He hit .230 from the Left side last year.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I tend to believe that speed ages better than power. I think he willbe able to bounce back.

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    Victorino is a decent player , but nothing more than that.  He may be slowing down a bit to boot. Hard to see where he will give us more production than Ross did.  I guess this means that Hamilton is out.  Right now , I don't think we have as good a team as we did at the start of last year.  Apparently , the money saved on AGon , Crawford and Beckett is going to be at least partially spent on several average to slightly above average guys.  It will be very tough to compete in the A.L East with this lineup. Call me a whiner if you want , but that is how I see it.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    Wow that was quick. Can someone tell BC that it's not a race? 

     

    Victorino is fine by me. I also give this a B-. They clearly came to their senses regarding Swisher. 

     

    Wheres the fire though?

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to Thesemenarecowards' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems like a lot of money for a guy coming off a a .255/.320OBP season and his best seasons were 3-5 years ago.

    I'd like him at about 1/2-2/3 of that money.  He is a switch hitter but his spilts are huge.  He hit .230 from the Left side last year.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Cowards, I agree it is a lot of money.  But, I am not so sure about this assertion that some folks are making that he is in obvious decline.  2012 was a bad year for Shane.  But, he is one year removed from what was arguably his best offensive season.  Shane was never a great offensive player.  But he does a lot of things well.  He can run.  He gets on base.  He has surprising power.  

    I was a big proponent of signing Cody Ross last year.  And he did exactly what he was supposed to do.  However, for the money (and Cody will get similar money), I think Victorino is the better value.  Outside of being clutch (which Shane has also shown in his career), Ross hit home runs.  And thats it.  He is a semi-liability in the field.  Strikes out way too much.  When you factor everything in, Victorino is a better choice than Ross (not that you were making that comparison).

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to emp9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wow that was quick. Can someone tell BC that it's not a race? 

     

    Victorino is fine by me. I also give this a B-. They clearly came to their senses regarding Swisher. 

     

    Wheres the fire though?

    [/QUOTE]

    The fire's in Nashville, man...along with an endless flow of Jack Daniels.

     

     

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    like this move big time. we can do so many things from here. now lets get some pitching!!

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    Unless Ellsbury is going in a trade, this signing stinks.

    Victorino's skills have eroded in the last couple of years. He doesn't have the bat to be a corner OF.

    Napoli, Victorino ansd Gomes? Does Ben know how to make a TRADE for someone under 32?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxpride34. Show redsoxpride34's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    dont really understand this signing. victorino is a leadoff/number2 hitter. his skillset is that of a cf. not a rf. we needed an impact bat, not another slap hitter. im sorry but replace agonz, crawford with napoli and victorino is not going to make this team better. not to mention having gomes start in left. the sox fo is a joke. victorino made 9.5 mill last year and had a down year, yet they give him 13 mill per? 

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to Leftymcrighty's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Unless Ellsbury is going in a trade, this signing stinks.

    Victorino's skills have eroded in the last couple of years. He doesn't have the bat to be a corner OF.

    Napoli, Victorino ansd Gomes? Does Ben know how to make a TRADE for someone under 32?

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure about this erosion notion.  he had a bad year last year.  The year prior was as good as it gets for Victorino.  he was never an offensive force, just does a lot of things.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from donrd4. Show donrd4's posts

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Jon Heyman reports the Red Sox are one of three teams in on Victorino...

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/12/momentum-building-toward-deal-for-victorino.html

    Thoughts?

    [/QUOTE]


    Very nice pickup...Another very good job by sox.Seems to be putting the puzzle together.Ithink when all is said and done we shouldn't have anything to complain or bi..tch about. What happens , it happens not fault of Owners or GM.. They are really trying to right things.Looking good.....Go SOX !!!!!!

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

    Re: Shane Victorino

    In response to redsoxpride34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    dont really understand this signing. victorino is a leadoff/number2 hitter. his skillset is that of a cf. not a rf. we needed an impact bat, not another slap hitter. im sorry but replace agonz, crawford with napoli and victorino is not going to make this team better. not to mention having gomes start in left. the sox fo is a joke. victorino made 9.5 mill last year and had a down year, yet they give him 13 mill per? 

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm not as down on it as you are but I do agree it is a lot of money for the Flyin Hawaiian.

    He can hit 1 or 2 when needed but during his best years in Philly he often hit down in the line-up and should be fine doing that here. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share