Login
ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 822
01/22/12 10:06 PM
FenwayTheHardWay wrote:So what kind of player SHOULD the Sox have received for Scutaro? Can we get some examples of similar players who've been traded in recent years, and what the returns have been?
Interact
Posts: 92
01/22/12 10:12 PM
beasleyrockah wrote: qutennis5 wrote: This board has been unreadable the past couple of weeks sounding like spoiled rich kids who pout when their rich daddies don't give them the most expensive toys each year.Yeah, this board has really been lacking great comments like this. How about you add to the discussion rather than continue the shit talking? Some people are actually discussing this trade in reasonable terms, and comments like this certainly don't help the dialogue. I disagree with a number of people's opinions, on both sides, but you aren't exactly encouraging civil discussion when you equate confusion over a seemingly bad trade to a child crying for a toy. The fact is, very few people here are upset at a lack of "big ticket" free agent signings, and this one trade has very little to do with those non moves. EDIT: Sorry to call you out, it's just I've heard comments like this a lot lately and I don't think they are fair. There are extreme opinions on both sides, but most people are ok with trying to get under the tax. The problem I have, and I believe the problem most people have, is the way they've spent the limited funds they do have. I don't think they've made great value plays this offseason, and that isn't a really controversial opinion.
qutennis5 wrote: This board has been unreadable the past couple of weeks sounding like spoiled rich kids who pout when their rich daddies don't give them the most expensive toys each year.
Posts: 209
01/23/12 12:05 AM
Posts: 1330
01/23/12 1:57 AM
Posts: 3400
01/23/12 9:59 AM
Veteran Member
RedSox0407Champs wrote:It's the concept of nickeling and diming to stay under a salary cap that is self imposed by owners who in my opinion can go over it and are not doing so to the detriment of the team. Even if they land Oswalt, the Sox opened up a big hole dealing Scutaro for practically nothing.
Posts: 9070
01/23/12 10:15 AM
Senior Forum Moderator
Posts: 1484
01/23/12 10:40 AM
First, the Sox found a team willing to take all of Scutaro’s salary. The Rockies, according to one major league source, were the first team to make such an offer this offseason.
The trade of Scutaro to Colorado freed up virtually all of the necessary CBT payroll flexibility for a hypothetical one-year, $8 million deal with, say, Roy Oswalt.
It is notable that Mortensen does have an option remaining. The Sox have a shortage of pitchers who would permit them the flexibility to shuffle them between Pawtucket and the majors this year, at a time when 40-man roster members such as Andrew Miller, Michael Bowden, Felix Doubront, Scott Atchison and Franklin Morales are out of options. Mortensen represents a pitcher whom the Sox can summon for a spot start or a week in the bullpen and then send him back down to the minors. He and Junichi Tazawa are the only two major league-ready pitchers on the 40-man roster who permit the Sox that kind of latitude.
It is notable that Mortensen does have an option remaining. The Sox have a shortage of pitchers who would permit them the flexibility to shuffle them between Pawtucket and the majors this year, at a time when 40-man roster members such as Andrew Miller, Michael Bowden, Felix Doubront, Scott Atchison and Franklin Morales are out of options.
Posts: 225
01/23/12 1:36 PM
jmei wrote:Three additional important nuggets from that Speier article: First, the Sox found a team willing to take all of Scutaro’s salary. The Rockies, according to one major league source, were the first team to make such an offer this offseason.The trade of Scutaro to Colorado freed up virtually all of the necessary CBT payroll flexibility for a hypothetical one-year, $8 million deal with, say, Roy Oswalt. It is notable that Mortensen does have an option remaining. The Sox have a shortage of pitchers who would permit them the flexibility to shuffle them between Pawtucket and the majors this year, at a time when 40-man roster members such as Andrew Miller, Michael Bowden, Felix Doubront, Scott Atchison and Franklin Morales are out of options. Mortensen represents a pitcher whom the Sox can summon for a spot start or a week in the bullpen and then send him back down to the minors. He and Junichi Tazawa are the only two major league-ready pitchers on the 40-man roster who permit the Sox that kind of latitude.Also, Speier's post demonstrated the incredible difficulty in trying to calculate your own AAV numbers. There just seems to be so much you have to take into account in terms of offsetting salary and the like.
Posts: 94
01/23/12 2:52 PM
FenwayTheHardWay wrote: RedSox0407Champs wrote: It's the concept of nickeling and diming to stay under a salary cap that is self imposed by owners who in my opinion can go over it and are not doing so to the detriment of the team. Even if they land Oswalt, the Sox opened up a big hole dealing Scutaro for practically nothing.Yes, it's remarkable that major league baseball and the players union allowed Larry Lucchino to author the entire current CBA himself, and then approved it without review.The luxury tax exists to tamp down the top end of the market. And it's well designed.
RedSox0407Champs wrote: It's the concept of nickeling and diming to stay under a salary cap that is self imposed by owners who in my opinion can go over it and are not doing so to the detriment of the team. Even if they land Oswalt, the Sox opened up a big hole dealing Scutaro for practically nothing.
Posts: 586
01/23/12 2:58 PM
Posts: 226
01/23/12 3:07 PM
RedSox0407Champs wrote:It doesn't explain why the Sox would get rid of Scutaro before they signed Oswalt, because if they don't get him or some other decent pitcher then the Sox are without a good pitcher and an above average SS.
Posts: 1489
01/25/12 4:24 PM
Posts: 2419
01/25/12 4:55 PM
sarasoxer wrote: jmei wrote: Three additional important nuggets from that Speier article: First, the Sox found a team willing to take all of Scutaro’s salary. The Rockies, according to one major league source, were the first team to make such an offer this offseason. The trade of Scutaro to Colorado freed up virtually all of the necessary CBT payroll flexibility for a hypothetical one-year, $8 million deal with, say, Roy Oswalt. It is notable that Mortensen does have an option remaining. The Sox have a shortage of pitchers who would permit them the flexibility to shuffle them between Pawtucket and the majors this year, at a time when 40-man roster members such as Andrew Miller, Michael Bowden, Felix Doubront, Scott Atchison and Franklin Morales are out of options.Mortensen represents a pitcher whom the Sox can summon for a spot start or a week in the bullpen and then send him back down to the minors. He and Junichi Tazawa are the only two major league-ready pitchers on the 40-man roster who permit the Sox that kind of latitude.Also, Speier's post demonstrated the incredible difficulty in trying to calculate your own AAV numbers. There just seems to be so much you have to take into account in terms of offsetting salary and the like.Excellent article!!...examining every imaginable nuance. And while I understand SSS is a factor, in 58+ innings last year Mortensen gave up only 55 hits for the Rockies and, as Speier notes, had a 3.86 ERA. Money savings aside, he does represent some potential value. If staying under the cap is ownership's thou shalt not eleventh commandment, (whether one personally believes its violation is not a mortal sin), the financial ability to make other moves, what those are and how they turn out will be the final arbiter.
jmei wrote: Three additional important nuggets from that Speier article: First, the Sox found a team willing to take all of Scutaro’s salary. The Rockies, according to one major league source, were the first team to make such an offer this offseason. The trade of Scutaro to Colorado freed up virtually all of the necessary CBT payroll flexibility for a hypothetical one-year, $8 million deal with, say, Roy Oswalt. It is notable that Mortensen does have an option remaining. The Sox have a shortage of pitchers who would permit them the flexibility to shuffle them between Pawtucket and the majors this year, at a time when 40-man roster members such as Andrew Miller, Michael Bowden, Felix Doubront, Scott Atchison and Franklin Morales are out of options.Mortensen represents a pitcher whom the Sox can summon for a spot start or a week in the bullpen and then send him back down to the minors. He and Junichi Tazawa are the only two major league-ready pitchers on the 40-man roster who permit the Sox that kind of latitude.Also, Speier's post demonstrated the incredible difficulty in trying to calculate your own AAV numbers. There just seems to be so much you have to take into account in terms of offsetting salary and the like.
It is notable that Mortensen does have an option remaining. The Sox have a shortage of pitchers who would permit them the flexibility to shuffle them between Pawtucket and the majors this year, at a time when 40-man roster members such as Andrew Miller, Michael Bowden, Felix Doubront, Scott Atchison and Franklin Morales are out of options.Mortensen represents a pitcher whom the Sox can summon for a spot start or a week in the bullpen and then send him back down to the minors. He and Junichi Tazawa are the only two major league-ready pitchers on the 40-man roster who permit the Sox that kind of latitude.
Posts: 1715
01/25/12 5:04 PM
Posts: 1523
01/25/12 6:22 PM
Posts: 3910
01/25/12 11:17 PM
Posts: 2534
01/26/12 12:15 AM
Yirmiyahu wrote:That Forbes profile shows them losing a slight amount of money last year (-$1M), but making $40M the year before, and $26M the year before that. But these valuations are only the Red Sox team itself, and do not include NESN or the rest of Fenway Sports Group. I'm not expecting Roush Racing or Liverpool FC to subsidize their baseball operations, but you cannot really separate NESN from the Red Sox. As a business model, there's nothing wrong with running the "Red Sox" at a break-even level, or even a loss, if its providing most of the content for your cable channel that brings in the real money. Though I agree that it looks like revenues have hit a wall (basically the same over 4 years), and that could be a concern going forward.
Posts: 210
01/26/12 12:47 AM
Guidas wrote:Yirmiyahu wrote:That Forbes profile shows them losing a slight amount of money last year (-$1M), but making $40M the year before, and $26M the year before that. But these valuations are only the Red Sox team itself, and do not include NESN or the rest of Fenway Sports Group. I'm not expecting Roush Racing or Liverpool FC to subsidize their baseball operations, but you cannot really separate NESN from the Red Sox. As a business model, there's nothing wrong with running the "Red Sox" at a break-even level, or even a loss, if its providing most of the content for your cable channel that brings in the real money. Though I agree that it looks like revenues have hit a wall (basically the same over 4 years), and that could be a concern going forward. Which is why it's time to build a new 43,000 seat stadium with a soft retractable roof (i.e. one that keeps the rain out but not is not sealed for temperature), chairs that fit modern bodies, more amenities for the players and NO obstructed seats. This increases revenue streams, makes the place more accessible for year round events, and I seem to recall that a team's revenue sharing payments are curtailed during stadium construction. announcing this would be a great way to cap off the 100 years of Fens, and hey - jobs, jobs, jobs and bigger sellouts.
Posts: 316
01/26/12 12:48 AM
Posts: 317
01/26/12 12:55 AM
Share This