The Red Sox 2009-2010 Offseason Discussion Thread

0 Points

Author	Comment
Guidas		#601	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 51 11/06/09 5:38 PM	Unless Halladay and Lee are signed to long term deals, it's going to be easier for the Sox to go into next winter with Beckett as a FA, so they can comparison shop, and also have had another year of Buch evals at the MLB level. I believe Halladay has a no-trade so if he goes in an off-season deal his agent may insist on an extension or no deal. If he is held until July 31, they prob won't care if Toronto is mired in 3rd or lower.
Interact My Recent Posts
mredsox89		#602	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 803 11/06/09 5:49 PM	I don't see the 2011 Redsox without either Beckett/Lee/Halladay/Felix. They will end up with one, either by trade (Felix) or in FA after next season. Having 3 monster pitchers on the FA market could be a great thing for the Sox. Not only will there be the ability to compare, but 3 teams will end up with superstar pitchers. Even if the Yanks go after one, the Sox will be most capable of spending on one of the others
Interact My Recent Posts
Archie Graham		#603	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 3020 11/06/09 6:00 PM	mredsox89 wrote: I don't see the 2011 Redsox without either Beckett/Lee/Halladay/Felix. They will end up with one, either by trade (Felix) or in FA after next season. Having 3 monster pitchers on the FA market could be a great thing for the Sox. Not only will there be the ability to compare, but 3 teams will end up with superstar pitchers. Even if the Yanks go after one, the Sox will be most capable of spending on one of the others "Capable" and "Willing To" are two different things. Until this team makes that kind of a commitment to a free agent pitcher, I see no reason to believe they will sign any of them (Beckett/Lee/Halladay).
Interact My Recent Posts
SoxSail		#604	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 300 11/06/09 6:03 PM	Guidas wrote: Unless Halladay and Lee are signed to long term deals, it's going to be easier for the Sox to go into next winter with Beckett as a FA, so they can comparison shop, and also have had another year of Buch evals at the MLB level. I believe Halladay has a no-trade so if he goes in an off-season deal his agent may insist on an extension or no deal. If he is held until July 31, they prob won't care if Toronto is mired in 3rd or lower. The wording of your post makes it almost impossible to decipher. When you say "goes", you mean "gets traded" and the identity of "they" in the second sentance is completely ambiguous. Furthermore, please use the quote function; I say this as the person whom you are quoting. Your different ways of getting around it are confusing, especially considering there is a perfectly good system in place for it. If you're on your phone or something, then I guess I kinda understand, although most people still figure it out, but don't use italics, because that is our code for sarcasm. As for MrRS, you may be right about the RS needing one of them, but it's really a discussion for next year, after we've seen what they can do, and we've seen how our AAA group and Kelly progress.
Interact My Recent Posts
buffs44444		#605	[url]	[-]
Moderator Veteran Member Posts: 1268 11/06/09 9:36 PM	Whatever small hope of Chris Iannetta appearing in a Sox uni appears to have gone up in smoke..... Rockies decline option on Torrealba Madness is like gravity....all you need is a little push.
Interact My Recent Posts
Guidas		#606	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 53 11/07/09 11:07 AM	The wording of your post makes it almost impossible to decipher. When you say "goes", you mean "gets traded" and the identity of "they" in the second sentance is completely ambiguous. Even in Utopia there's myopia I guess, but if quickly thumb-typed iphoneage made no sense, SoxSail, then the part where I said I believe Halladay has a no-trade so if he goes in an off-season deal his agent may insist on an extension or no deal In the King's English this was meant to mean: "I believe Halladay has a no-trade (clause within the text of his contract with the Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club) so if he goes (i.e. is traded) in an off-season deal his agent may insist on an extension (to said contract with acquiring club) or no deal (will be sanctioned by Mr. Halladay and his representatives). As for the ambiguosity of my sentence the second, wherein I wrote, albeit clumsily: If he is held until July 31, they prob won't care if Toronto is mired in 3rd or lower. What I meant to imply - and hoped readers would infer - was: If he (i.e. Mr. Halladay) is held (by said Blue Jays of Toronto) until July 31 (of 2010), they (the aforementioned Mr. Halladay and his contractual representatives) prob won't care (about said extension) if Toronto is mired in 3rd (place standing in the American League East) or lower (i.e. below third place). Or if I was back on the iPhone: "Homeboy and his agent will prob want an extension to approve any trade before 7-31-10." Cheers! - Guidas
Interact My Recent Posts
DCRi		#607	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 1168 11/07/09 1:11 PM Veteran Member	It seems to me that usually it is the acquiring team, not the player, that wants the opportunity to negotiate an extension before completing a deal for an elite player, a deal that will be expensive in terms of players given up. Why would an elite player want an extension when he is going to be a FA? The reasoning here just doesn't make sense to me. And in any case I doubt there is any issue unless they trade him to a bad team, which is not going to happen.
Interact My Recent Posts
TokenWilliams		#608	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 505 11/07/09 1:13 PM	Since we've moved on Morneau, I probably should leave this alone, but if I did I wouldn't be me. Guidas, this sentence is really bothering me: "-Even if their projected 30% increase in "revenue" (which I think is incredibly rosy for that market after the first year novelty wears off) becomes a 20% increase in average payroll, that's approx $12 mil more a year." Where are your numbers coming from? How do you get to a $12M increase in payroll due to an increase in Revenue number you do not site? DO you know the Twins current revenue and just didn't share it with us? Do you know the percentage of the revenue they put towards payroll? Do you know how an increase in revenue will change the percentage they put towards payroll? Will it affect the money they receive from revenue sharing? I don't want to be a jerk, but simply want to find out how you arrived at 12M. If you only used the payroll figure and did some weird math then you may want to re-think your point... points have already been made as to why the Twins would not trade him, right now. Amfox, I was surprised at your post. I know you were not proclaiming anything, but do you think the Phillies/Dodgers would even consider trading Hamels/Billingsley straight-up for Beckett let alone include a top prospect(s) and/or another key major league player(s)… I say no way… but I like your posts so I'd be interested to hear your reasoning... i can be persuaded... As for Casey Kelly being 1 year away, I'm curious, how close is he? When I first read "1 year", I was taken aback by it. Then I thought more about it and figured "why not?" Look at a lot of the top young pitchers around the league… how old were King Felix, Price, Kershaw, Billingsley, etc, etc, etc… (countless more) when they reached the majors and had some success? We already know Kelly has a great feel for pitching and great command/control. It seems to me that they need to build him up (innings) as much as anything else… obviously he has stuff to improve on, but so do Clay Buchholz, Daniel Bard and to a lesser extent Jon Lester. It seems to me that the Sox like to overload in some areas if they cannot obtain what they want in another. I could see a situation where they resign Beckett and sign Lackey. Not if Lackey is going to get 15M-20M per season, but the timing of his free agency has been terrible for him, considering his last year or so. His playoff performance certainly helped him out, but if teams are a little shy on him and the Yankees are not involved then his tag could potentially drop to the $13M-15M range… I could see the Sox kicking the tires and swooping in at that tag… no way are they involved if the bidding gets higher than that, which is likely, but who knows in this environment… (Lester, Beckett, Lackey, Buccholz, DiceK)… sorry Wake.
Interact My Recent Posts
MVPedroia15		#609	[url]	[-]
Rookie Posts: 19 11/07/09 3:52 PM	ESPN weighs in on the Bay vs. Holliday debate: http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/news/story?id=4624797
Interact My Recent Posts
Guidas		#610	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 54 11/07/09 5:02 PM	So Token, you asked how I got at this conclusion. Even if their projected 30% increase in "revenue" (which I think is incredibly rosy for that market after the first year novelty wears off) becomes a 20% increase in average payroll, that's approx $12 mil more a year." I based this on an assumption that current revenue = baseline, then averaged the last 5 years of payroll - which was nearly static - and assumed that that was directly tied to current revenue. So if average payroll = $61 mil (= baseline) then I assumed that with a 30% increase in revenue (i.e. overbaseline) the Twins, being a profit generating business would at best increase their payroll 30% but more likely (again owing to profit and the fact that very few teams plow all their total revenue increase back into payroll (i.e. some will go to intl free agents, some into other org improvements, and some into the owners' pockets), then a reasonable - if not extremely rosy outlook would be a 20% increase in payroll. 20% of 61 million (baseline based on average) = $12.2 million, which would equal $73.2 million, 30% - if one actually believes that a 30% increase in revenue would generate a 30% increase in payroll (highly unlikely, but perhaps possible) would raise the payroll to $79.3 million. So the short answer - I equated the very rosy 30% increase in revenue to a 20-30% increase in average payroll over the last 5 years. According to Cotts, Morneau is owed an average of $14 million per year from 2010-2013, inclusive. That alone accounts for nearly 19% of a $73.2 million payroll (btw, Twins 09 payroll according to Cotts http://mlbcontracts.blogs.../minnesota-twins_17.html is $65.30 million). Then you look at Mauer - 26, MVP, catcher and the best guidelines are Teixera ($23 mil ave per year) and ARoid ($27.5 mil per year) and assume that his market value would be closer to ARoid, given his age and position, but if he gave Minnesota a "discount" it would prob fall between Teixera and Rodriguez ($23-25 million a year). That would put Morneau and Mauer in a position of comprising $37-39 million a year. That would account for approximately 50% of payroll for two players despite a 20-30% increase in payroll. This seems untenable for almost any team, but especially a team like the Twins that has shot for revenue certainty throughout it's recent history. I figured in this equation, Morneau may be available, especially if they do extend Mauer this winter, because Mauer is younger and plays a more valuable position. With a Mauer extension in the range above, Morneau becomes much more of a "must trade commodity" than A. Gonzalez or H. Ramirez. Hope this at least clairifies the methodology. Guidas
Interact My Recent Posts
Guidas		#611	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 55 11/07/09 5:08 PM	DCRi wrote: It seems to me that usually it is the acquiring team, not the player, that wants the opportunity to negotiate an extension before completing a deal for an elite player, a deal that will be expensive in terms of players given up. My assumption in my Halladay query was that both Schilling and Santana required extensions to their current deals to approve their trades and Halladay and his agent would probably want the same, as well as build in security at market value in case there's a snap, crackle or pop before Roy finishes the year and reaches free agency. I agree that the acquiring team makes an extension a likely component of the deal if they are giving away all those juicy prospects. It is also very possible that Mr. Halladay, being so sick of being on a losing team would waive the no trade to a team he perceives a winner without the insurance of an extension and he and his agent hope he makes it to free agency in tact.
Interact My Recent Posts
IBSmith85		#612	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 70 11/07/09 7:22 PM	I think Minnesota picking up Cuddyer's 10.5 million dollar option is enough to negate the whole Morneau salary dump trade, could be wrong but i think that speaks for itself. Atleast to start the season anyways, if they're out of it mid-season, the tradeline could be a different story. Cuddyer link below. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4632132 "I will repeat as Rookie of the Year" - Dustin Pedroia
Interact My Recent Posts
TokenWilliams		#613	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 506 11/07/09 8:09 PM	Guidas, thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure if you realized how flawed your logic is, but at least I get where you are coming from. I dont want to say you pulled a number from no where, because you have your reason for it, but the reasoning makes no sense. You can use this equation for revenue: Revenue = Net Income + Payroll + "all other expenses" Just because one increases by a certain amount doesn't mean the others do the same. "All other expenses" is comprised of both fixed and variable costs and you cannot say all of either type is directly related to revenue. More revenue from a ball park probably means you need extra staffing at the game, but it means more concession dollars as well. I doubt they have to advertize more because of a new stadium so advertizing/marketing expenses can stay relatively stable or increase at a lower rate. We could go on and on but the point is revenue increases should substancially out pace any increase in costs under these circumstances, which grows income. Thus an argument could be made that if they are expecting a 30% increase in revenue from the new ball park the Twins should be able to increase their payroll by more than 30% and still grow their net income. Sorry it shouldn't bother me in the least bit that you came up with the $12M figure from someone stating they expect a 30% growth in revenue... i get hung up on silly things at times. IBSmith85 is right about Cuddyer's option... another log on the fire
Interact My Recent Posts
SoxSail		#614	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 308 11/07/09 10:02 PM	TokenWilliams wrote: Revenue = Net Income + Payroll + "all other expenses" While mathematically correct, it's conceptually backwards to define revenue in terms of income plus expenses. Also, I have no problem with assuming an increase of payroll 30%, although I don't think it's very scientific. He explained it well both times, and he understands what Revenue means, no need to criticize over something like this, just say you don't agree, and back it up if you can.
Interact My Recent Posts
Guidas		#615	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 57 11/08/09 1:50 AM	SoxSail wrote: TokenWilliams wrote: Revenue = Net Income + Payroll + "all other expenses" While mathematically correct, it's conceptually backwards to define revenue in terms of income plus expenses. Also, I have no problem with assuming an increase of payroll 30%, although I don't think it's very scientific. He explained it well both times, and he understands what Revenue means, no need to criticize over something like this, just say you don't agree, and back it up if you can. Actually I thought #1 Revenue = gross receipts collected +dividends paid+other income; that #2 Gross expenses = payroll + supplies + other monies disbursed; and that Net Income = #1 - ( (#2-taxes) + (all the crap written off)+ (all the crap hidden or otherwise creatively accounted for) ). Anyway, my brief naps in business school aside, how about I add this to clarify my proposition: The Twins are a cheap-assed team. This declaration is based on the team's data from the last 7 years which illustrate the Twins cheap-assedness by the fact that they have annually had team payrolls or below the MLB midpoint in this category despite (or should I say, regardless of) the assets or revenues of its owners. Because of this history, I expect the trends set by this data to continue with allowance for a modest increase in payroll. However, I suspect that this increase in payroll will be just enough to minimize the grousing regarding the investment in public funds for a stadium dedicated a privately held team that was, until recently, principally owned by the singularly richest man amongst all MLB ownership. I expect the new ownership, the past owner's offspring, to be only slightly less cheap-assed, and will continue with this expectation until significant data arises indicating otherwise.
Interact My Recent Posts
ArodSucksAtLife		#616	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 3779 11/08/09 2:16 AM Veteran Member	A 2 WARP 28 year old catcher with 10:$4.75M, 11:$5.75M, 12:$6.75M club option ($0.75M buyout) remaining on his contract for a 2 WARP 32 year old first basemen with a 7 mm for '10 before becoming a free agent? Makes sense to me. link I am in love with Clayton Kershaw. I want him in me. - Curll84
Interact My Recent Posts
jspearlj1		#617	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 4942 11/08/09 9:53 AM	To connect that Snyder for Overbay trade to the sox... If completed it might mean the end of Conor Jackson in Arizona. He'd make an excellent bench/RH platoon partner with Hermida. Not exactly an upgrade from Bay, but with their upside and the ability to improve the team by taking the money savings from Bay to hermida/Jackson and dumping Lowell and picking up Beltre adnd I think the difference is made up on defense. Not a horrible backup plan I guess. (His splits over his career are misleading... early in his career and his last season, which he had valley fever, he had a reverse split, but in 2007 and 2008 when he was healthy and had a good amount of MLB experience his splits were in the mid 900's versus LH... if that's the Conor you can get then that's a very good platoon with Hermida). Last Edited By: jspearlj1 11/08/09 10:01 AM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts
buffs44444		#618	[url]	[-]
Moderator Veteran Member Posts: 1276 11/08/09 10:28 AM	I like Jackson too, jspearl, but he's split time between LF and 1B recently and I was actually stunned that his numbers in LF aren't that bad (SSS). I think a lot of the future of Conor Jackson hinges on Eric Byrnes more than Overbay though. If they can move Byrnes or decide to move on and cut ties with him with a year left on his deal, then they may just stick with Jackson in LF, Parra as the 4th OF, and Overbay at 1st. If they can't find a taker or can't stomach the hit of cutting $11M for no return whatsoever, then they may have very little choice but to non-tender or trade Jackson, most likely the latter. In that case, he would definitely be worth a look. Madness is like gravity....all you need is a little push.
Interact My Recent Posts
TokenWilliams		#619	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 507 11/08/09 11:04 AM	The only reason I defined Revenue "backwards" was because that's the way we are working... you're right I should have let it go and admitted as much. I don't think i could though because we were using a very specific number as evidence as to why the Twins would trade one of the top players in baseball despite the fact that he was just signed to a discounted long-term deal. I felt being more specific and digging deeper into it was worth it to some extent.... my appologies - everyone is entitled to their opinions and reasoning... i appreciate he had thought behind it.
Interact My Recent Posts
TokenWilliams		#620	[url]	[-]
Veteran Member Posts: 508 11/08/09 11:19 AM	More importantly... My offseason binky (Abreu) is off the market... re-signed for 19M over 2 years.... great deal for the Angels... This team needs 2 bats.. 2 very good productive bats... I'm on the Adrian Gonzalez bandwagon. I'm open to including one of Buchholz or Bard. Buchholz if the Sox go all out after Lackey and re-sign Beckett. Ideally the second bat would come by re-signing Bay or signing Holliday... Hermida better not be starting unless there is an injury and he wrestles the job away from the person by fullfilling his potential. The Red Sox aren't the type of team that hands the job to a "long-shot" because they cannot come up with something better. I'm not sure what the Padres would want or if they are interested, but an article in the Globe today talked about how Adrian wasn't featured in their season ticket packages... I don't know if this has significance, nor do I fully understand what "not being featured" means so I take it with a grain of salt. Buchholz, Anderson, Kalish (I think the Sox like him better which would mean Hoyer probably does too), Bowden, Pimentel and Richardson? Is this too much "stuff" and not enough "value"? I don't know... I think the bottom line is the Sox won't be trading Kelly or Westmoreland. They won't trade Buchholz and Bard together. So what else do they have right now? I think this time next year we are talking about a much more valuable system in terms of tradable assets as guys will be closer to the majors. The good news is the Padres aren't close to competing so maybe "close to the majors" won't be highly important for them if they can get a high volume of quality prospects. Lars strength isn't home runs so his gap power could play well in Petco, Bowden and Richardson should be more effective in that ballpark and the NL in general. Buchholz obviously has the ceiling and is an elite chip while Kalish and Pimentel give the developing prospect that have good ceilings and aren't exactly super raw... Even with this deal the Sox would have to open their wallets for Bay/Holliday, Lackey and Beckett in my opinion. If not, then you are still one bat short and still one starter short so why give up all the talent this year?
Interact My Recent Posts

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

SoxProspects.com

The Red Sox 2009-2010 Offseason Discussion Thread