Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    It's a myth, because the Red Sox have to pay what the arbitrater decides they must pay to retain him.

    Wrong again.  The arbitrator only decides after the third year.  So if you keep him on the roster playing part time, you have effctively given away that first year of minimum pay.

    Seriously, you have no outs on the arbitration.  It's 6 years, and more control is always, always better than less control.

    You're best approach is purely from a W/L, damn the salary, perspective.  If I were you, my argument would be that platooning Gomes/Papi at DH, and Vic/Nava in RF, with JBJ fulltime in LF, would result in more wins, and the xtra fans he would bring in would pay for his added arbitration cost.

    Claiming myths when it is pretty cut and dried, makes you look defensive, and like you're afraid of the facts.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    It's just Softy being Softy....the "7th year" lie is a joke, and he knows it.  But his MO is to repeat lies over and over.

    Assuming Bradley comes good, the Sox can save millions in his 4th year.....a near-minimum salary rather than an Arb year.  Years 5 & 6 there will also be savings...then the Sox get a 7th year of control.

    All for the modest cost of 20 games or so.....it's a non-issue...Stiffy just wants to get attention.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    It's a myth, because the Red Sox have to pay what the arbitrater decides they must pay to retain him.

    Wrong again.  The arbitrator only decides after the third year.  So if you keep him on the roster playing part time, you have effctively given away that first year of minimum pay.

    Seriously, you have no outs on the arbitration.  It's 6 years, and more control is always, always better than less control.

    You're best approach is purely from a W/L, damn the salary, perspective.  If I were you, my argument would be that platooning Gomes/Papi at DH, and Vic/Nava in RF, with JBJ fulltime in LF, would result in more wins, and the xtra fans he would bring in would pay for his added arbitration cost.

    Claiming myths when it is pretty cut and dried, makes you look defensive, and like you're afraid of the facts.

     
    Nice job taking softy to the wood shed, Joe.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    The only reason the Red Sox started 3-2 is because S. Drew and Ortiz were on the DL. Sometimes, Joe, stupidity gets lucky.

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Vote: Should Bradley be sent down to save nearly a year of arbitration control 7 years from now when Ortiz Comes off the DL?

    Is that a picture of your dartboard?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share