Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

The Future of Curt Schilling


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
415 replies to this topic

#151 George from Maine

  • 1,627 posts

Posted 27 October 2007 - 12:41 PM

I have seen that quote attributed to Theo here, but have never seen a source. Can anyone provide one?

#152 JimM

  • 987 posts

Posted 27 October 2007 - 12:48 PM

I would think the FO would have to be ready to sign Curt for 2008, especially since he's only looking for a one-year deal. We do have that info from a pretty good source.

My thought would be to guarantee at least 13 or 14M but maybe not in a one-year deal. What about a one-year 11M contract with a 4M buyout in 2009 if he doesn't play and a second year at 11M if he did play. That would seem to make sense for everyone. Curt gets a guaranteed 15M if he pitches one year, 22M if things go well and he pitches for 2 years. I would guess that in 2009 if the option is not picked up it's because 2 of Lester, Buchholz, Bowden, Masterson are in the rotation with Beckett and Dice-K so a 4M buyout won't hurt as much with those lower salaries on the books.

I'd like to think the group running the team would be willing to take a solid 1 year risk for someone that has been so important to the franchise over the last four years. I don't think the issue for them right now should be if they sign, but when and how to make it work.

*edited for bad math*

Edited by JimM, 27 October 2007 - 12:49 PM.


#153 herbie plews

  • 29 posts

Posted 27 October 2007 - 01:41 PM

I don't see the point in someone else posting about how signing him is a no-brainer...

..The question for this thread is whether or not the front office wants him back for what he's asking for.


Yeah, I think they do. Because it's a no-brainer.

#154 kazuneko

  • 1,716 posts

Posted 27 October 2007 - 01:49 PM

My thought would be to guarantee at least 13 or 14M but maybe not in a one-year deal. What about a one-year 11M contract with a 4M buyout in 2009 if he doesn't play and a second year at 11M if he did play. That would seem to make sense for everyone. Curt gets a guaranteed 15M if he pitches one year, 22M if things go well and he pitches for 2 years.

But what if Schilling were to decide to retire after next year (something that most certainly considering or why would he only want a one year deal). If a player decides to retire is his team still required to pay a buyout for a year he has voluntarily opted out of?

#155 JimM

  • 987 posts

Posted 27 October 2007 - 02:08 PM

The idea would be to make sure he gets at least 14 to 15M the buyout allows for that, and keeps his salary for 2008 down while it is determined which (if any) of the young pitchers can become a FT starter in the majors. If they can and he retires, you give him his $4M thank you and that's offset in 2009 by the fact that at least 1 or 2 starters are making small money.

If he does want to play again, he reups for the 11M for 2009 which is not a bad price for a quality SP. Basically the deal is 15M for one year or 22M for 2. Having the larger amount spread over 2 years just keeps salary down for 2008 and makes signing free agents a little easier (not that the Sox should have any problems with that).

#156 Rooster Crows

  • 1,116 posts

Posted 27 October 2007 - 02:10 PM

Are you all serious? This is a major players market. Curt can go on the open market and clear $13 million easily, guaranteed, without any condescending conditions or incentives. If we want him, we should make him a solid offer in that range before he hits free agency. Once other clubs are allowed to negotiate, there are going to be better offers. If we start dicking around with performance incentives, we could lose the guy completely and end up in Kyle Lohse for 3yrs/$24 million land.

I completely agree on the performance incentives, which is why I had disagreed with the post you quoted on same. In so doing, as an aside, I sarcastically mentioned G38's ST condition because we all know (and he admitted) he did not start ST in great shape last year. I'm not big on the smiley emoticon things, and thought the sarcasm obvious enough not to require same. Since this topic's discussion has kind of gone around in circles a few times already, I am getting off this particular thread now, thereby avoiding the need for warnings about subtle comments - sarcastic or otherwise. For the full and accurate context of my comment, see entire comment is below.

Not to go all Torre on you, but I don't think someone of Schilling's nature and pedigree needs or deserves performance based incentives for one last year, although perhaps one of the conditions to his new contract should be participation in a more structured offseason conditioning program and maxmimum weight requirement for start of ST.


Edited by Rooster Crows, 27 October 2007 - 02:11 PM.


#157 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,717 posts

Posted 27 October 2007 - 02:13 PM

Letting Schilling go would be akin as a baseball equivalent to the Chris Carter Syndrome (released by the Philadelphia Eagles for "only catching TD passes"): He only comes up big in the critical games.


I understand the point you are making, but the analogy is deeply flawed.

Carter was an athlete in the prime of his career who was let go because of personal problems. Only after Carter talked about overcoming cocaine addiction many years later did we learn that this was the real reason that he was let go by the Eagles. He has since credited Buddy Ryan as being the man who saved his life by forcing him to seek help before being allowed to continue his NFL career.

By contrast, Schilling is a very talented pitcher who is past his physical prime but who has the mental toughness and "baseball intelligence" to offset this fact. My personal perspective is that his performance this postseason shows that a one year extension is a good idea. If he were willing to come back for the same contract he signed last year - which he talked about on this site back in the spring - I'd do it.

There are many, many arguments to be made for keeping him. But comparing this situation to a wide receiver released because his cocaine addiction was spiraling out of control is reaching, to say the least.

#158 geoduck no quahog


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,931 posts

Posted 28 October 2007 - 01:25 PM

A well-balanced team really benefits from an active veteran pitcher willling to spend time with the kids. It's not the same as a coach.

That non-statistical, non-performance aspect needs to be factored into any decision.

There are only so many active vets that command respect on the field AND are willing to serve as a mentor to young stable-mates.

Schilling seems to fit that bill. I'm sure there are other vets that don't. Without Schilling (barring trades) the Red Sox camp really only has Wakefield as the grey-hair, and I'm not sure the team wants Lester, Buchholz and and others taught the subtleties of the knuckleball.

Not the over-riding reason to sign him, but certainly an important one.

#159 ddrops

  • 203 posts

Posted 28 October 2007 - 02:08 PM

Curt can go on the open market and clear $13 million easily, guaranteed, without any condescending conditions or incentives. If we want him, we should make him a solid offer in that range before he hits free agency. Once other clubs are allowed to negotiate, there are going to be better offers. If we start dicking around with performance incentives, we could lose the guy completely and end up in Kyle Lohse for 3yrs/$24 million land.


This is why re-signing him is a no-brainer to me. At this point in his career, it's not about the money for the him; he's already giving the team a sizable hometown discount. Give him a reasonable 1 yr (or 1 + option for 1 more) deal and be done with it. I'd hate to see him spend his last year with the Rays.

Not to mention, all of the extra press and memorabilia Schilling in his final season with the Sox will generate. Even if the team believes the market is overvaluing his worth (which it probably is), between this, the money Schill is leaving on the table, and his help with the young pitchers, his total contribution is easily worth what it will take to keep him.

#160 Lollardfish

  • 1,833 posts

Posted 28 October 2007 - 02:10 PM

A well-balanced team really benefits from an active veteran pitcher willling to spend time with the kids. It's not the same as a coach.

That non-statistical, non-performance aspect needs to be factored into any decision.

There are only so many active vets that command respect on the field AND are willing to serve as a mentor to young stable-mates.

Schilling seems to fit that bill. I'm sure there are other vets that don't. Without Schilling (barring trades) the Red Sox camp really only has Wakefield as the grey-hair, and I'm not sure the team wants Lester, Buchholz and and others taught the subtleties of the knuckleball.

Not the over-riding reason to sign him, but certainly an important one.


I completely agree, but it's so hard to measure such a thing. And yet, you bring to mind something we learned a few days ago before Dice-K's LCS start.

From this article by Cafardo,

"We talked about pitching," said Schilling. "There are things that he has to get better at. For Dice-K to go from being a 15-game winner to a 25-game winner is no big thing. Details. Little details. Paying attention to little things. I was just trying to show him five or 10 things I do to keep consistent command of my fastball. That's the only thing holding him back. He has a great curveball, great change, great slider and when he adds fastball command at both sides of the plate, he's going to be unbeatable.

"It's not gonna take one month or two months or three months," Schilling added. "He can do it tomorrow."


And Dice-K's fastball control last night was pretty damn good, I thought.

This quotation + a solid starting pitcher (if no longer a true ace) at a reasonable one-year cost is why I want him back next year.

#161 OCD SS


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,874 posts

Posted 28 October 2007 - 02:37 PM

Unless the Sox can pull off a trade for a top starter like Santana, they need to sign Schilling.

Going into next season, they have only one starter who is not a question mark.

They will have two kids trying to make it and an older player who had injuries at the end of this year. Signing Schilling gives the Sox another option if some of the question marks do not work out.


Even if they do manage to trade for a top starter like Santana they will still need to resign Schilling. That trade would almost certainly remove one of the youngsters from the starting rotation, leaving a few less innings to replace but keeping the same numbers of arms in the rotation. With Wake a very big question mark, my count still makes a one year deal for an above average pitcher a no brainer.

#162 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,077 posts

Posted 28 October 2007 - 02:40 PM

Even if they do manage to trade for a top starter like Santana they will still need to resign Schilling. That trade would almost certainly remove one of the youngsters from the starting rotation, leaving a few less innings to replace but keeping the same numbers of arms in the rotation. With Wake a very big question mark, my count still makes a one year deal for an above average pitcher a no brainer.



Yes. Santana would probably cost them Lester and Buchholz and ____ -- and I'd make that deal in a heartbeat to secure a Beckett/Santana/Dice-K/Schilling/fill-in-the-blank rotation, provided Santana could be extended.

#163 MartyBarrettMVP

  • 2,159 posts

Posted 29 October 2007 - 09:53 AM

I have been searching SoSH for this quote from Rotoworld:

"Curt Schilling posted on the Sons of Sam Horn message board that he still hopes to sign a one-year contract with the Red Sox."

Nevermind. Just got a PM about it. It's on page 7 of this thread, if anyone is interested.

Edited by MartyBarrettMVP, 29 October 2007 - 10:16 PM.


#164 syoo8

  • 923 posts

Posted 29 October 2007 - 07:23 PM

Slightly off-topic, but when G38 commented on Roger Clemens signing with the Yankees with "we don't need him"....

I guess he was right.

#165 Go Big Red Sox

  • 615 posts

Posted 29 October 2007 - 08:29 PM

I have been searching SoSH for this quote from Rotoworld:

"Curt Schilling posted on the Sons of Sam Horn message board that he still hopes to sign a one-year contract with the Red Sox."

Nevermind. Just got a PM about it.


I know that I saw it on his website. Good read today.

#166 ragecage

  • 3,987 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 08:48 AM

Schilling on WEEI:

- Q: on a scale of 1-10, how likely do you think you will be back?
A: 5 (nothing has what he is looking for, etc)

- Farrell potentially leaving plays a huge factor (thinks he overqualified for Pirates, and has potential to be great GM-type guy)
- imagines that he will file for FA in the next few days but may take advantage of exclusive negotiating period if RS want to

#167 Omar's Wacky Neighbor

  • 2,942 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 08:57 AM

Also says Matsuzaka is a minor adjustment or two from winning 20-25 games.

He's pretty much saying goodbye now; ONLY team he won't go to is MFY.........

#168 Carroll Hardy


  • pinky higgins


  • 2,294 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 09:16 AM

I would think Schilling would want to go to Philly for one last year (and maybe along with Timlin and Lowell) to help Jamie Moyer to work with Cole Hamels, Brett Myers, Kyle Kendrick, and Adam Eaton.

Phillies got money to spend, as Garcia and Lieber leaving frees up $17.5M in 2008.

#169 Tony C


  • SoSH Member


  • 9,015 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 09:22 AM

I completely agree, but it's so hard to measure such a thing. And yet, you bring to mind something we learned a few days ago before Dice-K's LCS start.

From this article by Cafardo,
And Dice-K's fastball control last night was pretty damn good, I thought.

This quotation + a solid starting pitcher (if no longer a true ace) at a reasonable one-year cost is why I want him back next year.


i agree. no way to know for sure, but it did seem that Dice pitched in a different mode, after this talk, than before. i have to think Schill made a difference where Farrell and Varitek haven't. Would love to have CS back just for that.

and asking for a 1 year deal is more than reasonable.

#170 Flynn4ever

  • 523 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 09:36 AM

I dunno, I love Curt (political and religious views not held against him) on this team, and his shhhhhh.. one hitter and playoff performance make it hard to say he's a risk, but he is a risk over a 162 game season. That's not to say that Lester and/or Buchholz aren't, but I want to hear more about what kind of hometown discount or incentives Curt feels would be acceptable. I feel bad even asking though, as he was the glue of the pitching staff that endend our years of misery and the mentor for the staff that made us total bad-asses. Basically, I'm glad I'm not Theo on this because if G38 isn't here next year I'll feel a bit more like we are turning into a corporation (read; MFYish) but if he is and we overpay him, I'll be critical. If you read this Curt, don't hate me, by now you should know that to be a member of the nation is to feel schizophrenic about every personnel decision.

#171 Comfortably Lomb


  • Koko the Monkey


  • 6,891 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 12:43 PM

Just give him the cash as a thank you but make him agree the deal won't be announced until after the team tries to squeeze Lowell. Injury risk or not, if there's ever been a guy who you could just throw an extra few million onto their contract knowing full well he's probably only good for 25 starts of 4.00-4.20 ball next year it's this guy. He only wants a one year deal, good, do it and move on to the next question.

#172 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 7,180 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 01:49 PM

What's this all about?

"BOSTON -- Curt Schilling isn't going to make his teammates read his blog. He wrote some of them letters to say goodbye.

"I actually broke out a pen and paper the last couple days," Schilling said Tuesday in his weekly radio appearance while driving to Fenway Park for the Red Sox victory parade. "There's a very realistic chance I won't ever play with them again."

Edited to add quotes

Edited by tims4wins, 30 October 2007 - 01:50 PM.


#173 The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

  • 4,322 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 01:54 PM

Not to be a party pooper, but it seems hard to justify paying Schilling close to $13 million next year when Wakefield would likely get around $4 million.

They are the same age (Wakefield is older by a few months) and since 2004, Wakefield has made 117 starts for 52 wins; Schilling 98 starts for 53 wins. The peripheral stats say Schilling is a much better pitcher and obviously nobody disputes that, but how much better? and how valuable is that difference when taking into account the number of starts? If you want to go back to 2000 to include Schilling's outstanding Arizona years (among the best periods in recent pitching memory), he has made 221 starts to Wakefield's 199 (and during this time period, Wakefield spent 3 seasons bouncing between starting and the bullpen, while Schilling spent only 1 season with any bullpen duty post-surgery).

What does this tell us? It's probably a case of Wakefield's contract being an absolute bargain, but also I think right now Schilling is probably an $8 to $10 million player at most. In 3 of the past 5 seasons he has failed to make 25 regular season starts, and I can't imagine him pitching in more than 25 games next year (not to mention how deeply into the games will he be pitching?)

Edited by The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa, 30 October 2007 - 02:05 PM.


#174 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2,076 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 01:55 PM

Not to be a party pooper, but it seems hard to justify paying Schilling close to $13 million next year when Wakefield would likely get around $4 million.

They are the same age (Wakefield is older by a few months) and since 2004, Wakefield has made 117 starts for 52 wins; Schilling 98 starts for 53 wins. And if you want to go back to 2000 to include Schilling's outstanding Arizona years, he has made 221 starts to Wakefield's 199 (and during this time period, Wakefield spent 3 seasons bouncing between starting and the bullpen, while Schilling spent only 1 season with any bullpen duty post-surgery).

It's probably a case of Wakefield's contract being an absolute bargain, but also I think right now Schilling is probably an $8 to $10 million player at most. In 3 of the past 5 seasons he has failed to make 25 major league starts.


Wakefield had one start in the post season and gave up 4 runs in less than 5 innings.

Schilling was 3-0 with a 3.00 ERA.

#175 Mike in CT



  • 2,125 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 02:25 PM

If Boston doesn't work out, I wonder if LA might now be a great spot for him.

- Joe Torre there now, who Curt seems to greatly respect.
- They have young pitchers to tutor, but also older vets like Schmidt, Penny, Lowe and perhaps they go after Andy Pettitte as well. Good bullpen.
- Not a pitcher paradise ballpark, but not bad either (better than Fenway).
- Should be competitive... won't take much to jump up a notch and win that division.


I also like Milwaukee as a spot for him. That would probably be alot of fun for him. They could use his vet leadership.

#176 MartyBarrettMVP

  • 2,159 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 08:50 PM

According Curt's blog, he has a list of teams (after Boston) that he would go to:

Cleveland, Detroit, Anaheim, New York Mets, Philadelphia, Atlanta, L.A., S.D., Arizona, Chicago Cubs, St. Louis, Milwaukee

Edited by MartyBarrettMVP, 30 October 2007 - 08:51 PM.


#177 Todd Benzinger

  • 4,291 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 09:03 PM

No D-Rays?

I want him back (although it will be an election year in 08--ughh) but I am a little turned off by all his sentimentalized campaigning to get public opinion behind him--talking up the goodbye letters and his ability to help Dice-K...

I mean, who sends goodbye letters to their co-workers at all.... never mind BEFORE they know if they will actually be back the next year?

No offense to our most distinguished game-thread starter---longest streak of the year, only DCHONG might be more clutch--but I feel a bit manipulated. Too obvious. Be more subtle. But if it works, fine, I guess.

Also, what's with all the people who want to make a big point that he's not "worth" two years or so many millions. Whatev. If the Sox can afford to pay Matt Clement $9M to sit out this year---and they can--they can afford to pay Schill $4M more than he's "worth" in 2008.

Although maybe they could throw in an incentive clause for keeping out of the presidental campaign?

Edited by Todd Benzinger, 30 October 2007 - 09:04 PM.


#178 Drek717

  • 2,121 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 09:33 PM

There's no need for incentive clauses or any junk like that. This team makes enough money to afford giving Schilling a veteran bonus as it where.

Personally I hope we just offer arbitration. That's the one year, very good guaranteed money deal it sounds like he wants and he has the option to test the FA waters if he has any interest in that. He has every right to seek the big payday if he so chooses, but putting arb out there gets us a return if he does while at the same time putting a very lucrative one year offer on the table that is entirely at his discretion.

#179 The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

  • 4,322 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 10:06 PM

Wakefield had one start in the post season and gave up 4 runs in less than 5 innings.

Schilling was 3-0 with a 3.00 ERA.


Hello? Wakefield was in agony for the entire post-season.

And in game 2 of the ALCS at home against Cleveland, Schilling pitched 4.2 innings, 9 hits, 5 earned runs, 3 ks, and 2 homers.

look, I want Schilling back, but not at $13 million.

Edited by The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa, 30 October 2007 - 10:08 PM.


#180 Gehrig38


  • Dome-Bellied Big Lug


  • 310 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 10:55 PM

No D-Rays?

I want him back (although it will be an election year in 08--ughh) but I am a little turned off by all his sentimentalized campaigning to get public opinion behind him--talking up the goodbye letters and his ability to help Dice-K...

I mean, who sends goodbye letters to their co-workers at all.... never mind BEFORE they know if they will actually be back the next year?

No offense to our most distinguished game-thread starter---longest streak of the year, only DCHONG might be more clutch--but I feel a bit manipulated. Too obvious. Be more subtle. But if it works, fine, I guess.

Also, what's with all the people who want to make a big point that he's not "worth" two years or so many millions. Whatev. If the Sox can afford to pay Matt Clement $9M to sit out this year---and they can--they can afford to pay Schill $4M more than he's "worth" in 2008.

Although maybe they could throw in an incentive clause for keeping out of the presidental campaign?


If you listened to what I said earlier, the criteria for the D-Rays being in the mix then it might make more sense.

I didn't send anyone letters. I gave them to them on the flight home from Colorado.

Not sure what you see as manipulation, unless you don't believe the "If it doesn't work out, it's ok" line. I have been up front since day one, this is what I want, here. I also have repeatedly stated that I know that may not happen, and while disappointed on a personal level, I totally get it. I don't want people, or need anyone for that matter, to write about any of the crap that happened off the field, or on the field during a workout. You knowing it has zero impact on me doing it. You can't sneeze here without it showing up on Page 6, which means you either hole up and hide if you don't like it, fake it if who you are gets punished in the court of public opinion, or not care one shit about who writes what, warts and all. As long as those same 'writers' have no problems with a return salvo every now and then.

I'll be worth my contract, whatever that number ends up. I won't get ready for a season so I can 'take a break' midway, or work hard to be 12-11 with a 4.50. If I thought that was as good as I could do I'd hang up my spikes. There are changes to continue working on, and a whole new approach to pitching to finish perfecting. On this team, with this offense, I can win 20+ games with 32+ starts.

I'll show up in the best shape of my life, work my ass off in ST to make sure no kid gloves are needed, start the season as something other than someone's #1, shock the shit out of people, win a 4th ring, beat Josh in the CY voting by 1 (gonna have to tell him that in camp next year, hopefully on the golf course before a do or die putt), and Lord willing walk away healthy.

The fact that no one will expect me to be a significant part of a rotation next year is pretty much as big a challenge as you could put out there. I guess we'll find out over the course of the next 12 months who's right.

As far as the Politics go, that's for another thread in another topic, but vote for the person who will remain as close to who they were when they were elected, 4 years from now, regardless of their affiliation.

#181 sfip


  • directly related to Marilyn Monroe


  • 7,493 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 11:15 PM

According Curt's blog, he has a list of teams (after Boston) that he would go to:

Cleveland, Detroit, Anaheim, New York Mets, Philadelphia, Atlanta, L.A., S.D., Arizona, Chicago Cubs, St. Louis, Milwaukee

We know his history with Philly, but if he was originally hesitant to come to Boston for '04 because he's a flyball pitcher, he's not going to like Citizens Bank Park a whole lot.

Edited by sfip, 30 October 2007 - 11:33 PM.


#182 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2,076 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 11:18 PM

Hello? Wakefield was in agony for the entire post-season.


Exhibit A for why I prefer Schilling over him, Schilling is much more a certainty to be able to pitch and pitch effectively in 2008.

#183 satyadaimoku


  • wicked gunner


  • PipPip
  • 4,224 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 11:27 PM

Wakefield would likely get around $4 million...
What does this tell us?

Absolutely nothing about Curt Schilling. Wakefield has the most ridiculous contract in all of baseball. He easily could have gotten double that in the open market. If the choice was Schilling or a pitcher of Wakefield's quality willing to sign an equally absurd contract, then you would have a point. Since there is no second Wakefield out there, you don't have one.

The fact that no one will expect me to be a significant part of a rotation next year is pretty much as big a challenge as you could put out there. I guess we'll find out over the course of the next 12 months who's right.

Not to take away from your motivation, but I think the vast majority of people here think that you will be a major part of the Sox rotation next year, or any other rotation that you pitch for.

#184 JimD

  • 4,743 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 11:27 PM

Exhibit A for why I prefer Schilling over him, Schilling is much more a certainty to be able to pitch and pitch effectively in 2008.


More likely to outpitch Wake, yes, but not a certainty at his age.

#185 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2,076 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 11:33 PM

More likely to outpitch Wake, yes, but not a certainty at his age.


It is not about certainties, it's about probabilities.

#186 Saints Rest

  • 3,811 posts

Posted 30 October 2007 - 11:47 PM

Schilling is a very talented pitcher who is past his physical prime but who has the mental toughness and "baseball intelligence" to offset this fact. My personal perspective is that his performance this postseason shows that a one year extension is a good idea. If he were willing to come back for the same contract he signed last year - which he talked about on this site back in the spring - I'd do it.


This touches on my main reason to re-sign him: his baseball intelligence. It seemed like Curt only really made the adjustment in pitching style from power pitcher to control pitcher after his return from the DL. I think an entire off-season of preparation with this style in mind will allow him to turn into a guy who can still throw 200 innnings, but with a strikeout total down in the low 100's. It's unlikely he's going to turn into a guy who starts walking people a lot, so the reduced pitch count due to fewer K's means he will still be able to crank out some IP's.

In addition, this postseason really showed the importance for starting pitchers to limit walks. I'd like to think that Curt can help all the pitchers, but DiceK and Lester most notably, to learn that.

#187 The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

  • 4,322 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 01:43 AM

Exhibit A for why I prefer Schilling over him, Schilling is much more a certainty to be able to pitch and pitch effectively in 2008.


I repeat:

They are the same age (Wakefield is older by a few months) and since 2004, Wakefield has made 117 starts for 52 wins; Schilling 98 starts for 53 wins.


In 2007, Schilling made 24 regular season starts (151 innings, 9 wins), Wakefield made 31 regular season starts (189 innings, 17 wins). In 2006 it was basically the reverse.

How does that translate to "Schilling is much more a certainty to be able to pitch and pitch effectively in 2008."? Because Schilling was healthy for the playoffs and Wakefield wasn't? Maybe if Wakefield was d/led for a while like Schilling his back might have held up at the end of the season. Who knows. We know Curt is the better pitcher, by far, even in the "twilight of his career" (sorry). I just don't see the front office valuing him at $13 million.

G38, you're beloved in my family for your athletics and your character (and my mother's absolute favorite player) and we all love watching you pitch (I remember you in AA New Britain when I was a kid, the team with the infamous Manny Jose and the immortal Mike Dalton). You know the way this team operates when it comes to putting a value on a player...I'm hoping that if it comes in under what you are expecting that you will try to meet them somewhere in between, and hopefully they will too. Unless you leave Boston for a team like the Cubs and lead them to a World Series championship, I think your best shot at the HOF is to remain with Boston, defend the title, and lay claim to anchoring a new baseball dynasty.

#188 941827

  • 3,336 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 01:46 AM

I'll show up in the best shape of my life, work my ass off in ST to make sure no kid gloves are needed, start the season as something other than someone's #1, shock the shit out of people, win a 4th ring, beat Josh in the CY voting by 1 (gonna have to tell him that in camp next year, hopefully on the golf course before a do or die putt), and Lord willing walk away healthy.

The fact that no one will expect me to be a significant part of a rotation next year is pretty much as big a challenge as you could put out there. I guess we'll find out over the course of the next 12 months who's right.


Would a contract with a relatively low base (say, $9 million) but lots of reachable incentives based on games started and/or innings pitched (which could net you, let's say, $15 million if you had a 200 IP season) insult you?

#189 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2,076 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 01:46 AM

I repeat:
In 2007, Schilling made 24 regular season starts (151 innings, 9 wins), Wakefield made 31 regular season starts (189 innings, 17 wins). In 2006 it was basically the reverse.

How does that translate to "Schilling is much more a certainty to be able to pitch and pitch effectively in 2008."? Because Schilling was healthy for the playoffs and Wakefield wasn't?


Yup, it really is that simple, given the age of the two in question the person who is currently able to pitch effectively is more likely to be able to pitch effectively next year than the person who is currently unable to throw a pitch.

#190 sox junky

  • 946 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 03:03 AM

If the Sox fail to sign Schilling for 1 year at similar dollars to this year, it really will be hard to understand.

In "theory", they have enough starters for the team without him, but I don't think anyone would have thought Lester was a slam dunk to be successful next year until his last start was so impressive. And while I like Wakefield as a person, his inconsistency is maddening and his injury history is becoming worrisome. Dice-K could improve, or not. I am an Idiot may need to be handled with kid gloves.

My strong preference is to resign Schilling for 1 year and go with a young guns rotation with Schilling the elder statesman. Beckett, Dice-K, Schilling, Lester, I am an Idiot

I'd let Wakefield take the Tavarez role next year (swing man, spot starter), but he's also excellent injury insurance.

I just don't think a rotation of Beckett, Dice-K, Wake, Lester, I am an Idiot is championship caliber and I have a hard time seeing any other free agent pick-up being a better value this year than Schilling for 1 year.

In fact, resigning Schilling is a bigger no-brainer than resigning Mike Lowell. At least Schilling only wants 1 year. 3 years for Lowell is worrisome, 4 years is a nightmare waiting to happen. Just watch the market spiral out of control on that one...

I will be thoroughly disappointed if Schilling is not resigned. And I say this as a non-fanboy who was OK with not resigning Cabrera, Lowe, Damon, etc (although I did want to resign Pedro).

#191 Pandemonium67

  • 3,242 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 04:27 AM

On this team, with this offense, I can win 20+ games with 32+ starts.

Man, sign me up for some of that.

I can't believe posters here are quibbling about a few million dollars, and carrying on as though it were coming out of their own pockets. For god's sake, the Sox can afford to offer Schilling a competitive contract. In this market, that's probably 12 to 15 mil. THE RED SOX CAN AFFORD IT. And not wanting to sound like a kiss-ass, but I think incentives are insulting to a pitcher with Schilling's resume, as they were to Torre. I hope Theo offers him a square deal, gets the signature, and goes on to the stuff that isn't a no-brainer.

If there's someone out there who's better than Schilling and costs less, please let us know so we can get him too. I don't think he exists.

#192 samuelLsamson

  • 962 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 04:46 AM

beat Josh in the CY voting by 1 (gonna have to tell him that in camp next year, hopefully on the golf course before a do or die putt)


I like the fact you're visualising yourself in ST camp with Josh Beckett. Tells me all I need to know about where your heart lies. I hope Theo's got the same scene in mind, and I'll trust he's as smart as I think he is.

#193 RSN Diaspora


  • molests goats for comedy


  • 5,432 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 06:45 AM

This morning's Globe reports:

Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling filed for free agency yesterday, after telling a radio audience that "there's a very realistic chance I won't ever play" for the team again.

Schilling is probably correct, a club source said yesterday, unless he is willing to accept a low base salary loaded with incentive bonuses. In a free agent market short on starting pitching, the source said, Schilling can expect to receive a better offer elsewhere. He was paid $13 million by the Red Sox this season.

Asked if Schilling would be back, the team source said, "I don't think so. We have such a strong nucleus of pitching with Josh Beckett, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Jon Lester, and Clay Buchholz. We'll talk about it. We'll be reasonable. We'll see what happens.


(Full article here)

I'm skeptical of unnamed sources, but it's not like parting with an aging World Series hero is unprecedented now, after the 2004 season. But as has been discussed here ad nauseum, if you look at the free agent market, there isn't shit out there. If G38 is willing to take a one-year deal, I don't see why we don't get this done. Relying on full, successful seasons from Wakefield, Buchholz, and Lester with no Schilling strikes me as a recipe for disaster. Even if they don't rely on them, who else can take Schill's place for a season? Jon Lieber? Kenny Rogers?

There tends to be over-romanticization of a successful team's stars, what with people pining for Orlando Cabrera and Pedro after the 2004 WS, but when there's no better option, it is unacceptable to let your vital free agents go.

#194 Jimbodandy

  • 826 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 07:05 AM

This morning's Globe reports:
(Full article here)

I'm skeptical of unnamed sources, but it's not like parting with an aging World Series hero is unprecedented now, after the 2004 season. But as has been discussed here ad nauseum, if you look at the free agent market, there isn't shit out there. If G38 is willing to take a one-year deal, I don't see why we don't get this done. Relying on full, successful seasons from Wakefield, Buchholz, and Lester with no Schilling strikes me as a recipe for disaster. Even if they don't rely on them, who else can take Schill's place for a season? Jon Lieber? Kenny Rogers?

There tends to be over-romanticization of a successful team's stars, what with people pining for Orlando Cabrera and Pedro after the 2004 WS, but when there's no better option, it is unacceptable to let your vital free agents go.


I thought that this "anonymous club source" crap was put to bed. This is either very disconcerting or a bunch of hoohah.

Getting Curt done is a no-brainer. With resources that this team has, a few million either way doesn't mean squat. The Lowell conversation is entirely different, as the team is probably looking into the future and seeing years three and four of that deal as potentially dead money. Schill is not asking for years three and four. Get it done.

#195 Worst Trade Evah


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,834 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 07:27 AM

I really don't see what the downside is here. The total downside risk is that they overpay him like $5,000,000 -- which is nothing at all for these guys. If he's league average for 25 starts, he's still probably worth $8,000,000, and I think Schilling can do that in his sleep. The upside is he produces $20,000,000 in value for $12,000,000 or whatever. The upside risk at least equals the downside risk, and might double it.

Because he's only asking for ONE YEAR, this is really a no brainer. Stiff-arming him with a one year incentive-laden contract is bullshit. Penny-wise and pound-foolish. They really want to count on Beckett, Buchholz and Lester for 30 starts each? Good luck with that. I'm glad Beckett was healthy this year (only 1 DL stint), but he still has a track record there. Break Buchholz in in the bullpen.

The comparison with Wakefield is a non-starter. For one, Schilling doesn't require a personal catcher.

#196 Frisbetarian


  • ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫


  • 4,682 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 07:28 AM

I think the team's reluctance to re-sign Mr. Schilling is probably largely related to his conditioning (or lack thereof) during the past off season(s). Reading his quotes, "I'll show up in the best shape of my life, work my ass off in ST to make sure no kid gloves are needed," he certainly sounds committed to rectifying that issue. Still, one would expect some skepticism from the Sox. Is there any way the team and Mr. Schilling could come up with a team approved (and possibly monitored) workout/nutritionist schedule for the winter? Coupling this with an incentive contract like 941827 mentioned above may make the team more amenable.

Of course, there is no reason for Mr. Schilling to jump through these hoops merely to remain here. He will get offers elsewhere without incentives or scrutiny of his conditioning. So why do I suggest it? A hope that he will stay, I guess. For admittedly sentimental reasons, as well as a confidence that he will contribute in 2008, I would really like to see him retire as a Red Sox.

I doubt I'm alone among long suffering Red Sox fans that watched him lead us in that magical 2004 season to feel this way.

#197 Sportsbstn

  • 4,394 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 07:35 AM

I think the main reason signing Curt is pretty much a no-brainer is that in 2008 the free agent market for starting pitching is horrible and Schilling has showed after losing velocity he is still crafty enough to post 15-17 wins next year. Beyond this the Sox need 6 starting pitchers, we have seen this time and time again. There is a limit to what i would pay Curt, probably 13-14 million, but otherwise, sign him up.

There are a number of front line pitchers who potentially will be free agents in 2009:

CC Sabathia
John Lackey
Jake Peavy
Johan Santana
Ben Sheets


This team is built to win NOW and in the future and with Clement's money rolling off this year, the Sox have the cash and would even if it didnt.

A rotation of:

Beckett, DiceK, Schilling, Buchholz, Lester

Is an excellent blend in age and experience and sets up the Sox perfectly to add a big arm in 2009.

#198 sfip


  • directly related to Marilyn Monroe


  • 7,493 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 07:41 AM

I'm fine with signing Schilling for a year at his current salary, but could it be that maybe Theo & crew have something up their sleeve we don't know about regarding signing and/or trading for another starting pitcher? I wouldn't put it past them, and there are too many possibilities for at least myself to speculate whom that could be.

Edit: Sportsbstn beat me to some of the speculation.

Edited by sfip, 31 October 2007 - 07:43 AM.


#199 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14,399 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 07:45 AM

Whenever I think about this situation I always find myself coming back to Lester and Buchholz. What is their plans for them? They are the future and quite possibly the present. If the team thinks they can and should be in the rotation then you can only keep Wakefield AND Schilling if the former is willing to be a swingman type.

Let's assume they want to use one in the rotation and let the other stick in AAA for a bit and/or work out of the pen. Then Schilling is a no brainer on a short term contact. Who else takes a 1 year deal that can be reasonably expected to at least be average? I think his dedication to fitness and whatever else won't change what I expect to be a fairly volatile season (think of Tim Wakefield's feast or famine starts).

Frankly, I would prefer to see Beckett-Matsuzaka-Schilling-Buchholz-Lester as the rotation with Wakefield being the 6th guy working out of the pen and stepping in for spot starts or for extended periods if injuries happen. But I doubt they "mistreat" him like that.

Here's a question though, what happens if he comes out, pitches poorly, has some fluke injury that costs him the season, and decides he doesn't want to end his career like that and comes back for '08? He can say it's not possible, but we've seen things like that happen before. Do the Sox sign him again? What if it's another year after that? That is the problem with the "let him retire a Sox" point. I like the idea as much as anyone, but it's not really a definite. I imagine he's being truthful when he says this is it, but I know that I change my mind sometimes and I'm sure everyone else on the planet does too.

#200 DieHard3


  • SoSH Member


  • PipPipPip
  • 8,864 posts

Posted 31 October 2007 - 07:52 AM

This morning's Globe reports:
(Full article here)

I'm skeptical of unnamed sources, but it's not like parting with an aging World Series hero is unprecedented now, after the 2004 season. But as has been discussed here ad nauseum, if you look at the free agent market, there isn't shit out there. If G38 is willing to take a one-year deal, I don't see why we don't get this done. Relying on full, successful seasons from Wakefield, Buchholz, and Lester with no Schilling strikes me as a recipe for disaster. Even if they don't rely on them, who else can take Schill's place for a season? Jon Lieber? Kenny Rogers?

There tends to be over-romanticization of a successful team's stars, what with people pining for Orlando Cabrera and Pedro after the 2004 WS, but when there's no better option, it is unacceptable to let your vital free agents go.


If that source thinks this team has enough pitching with the uncertainty surrounding Matsuzaka's second half suckitude, with Lester's cancer a constant threat to return, and with Buchholz and Wakefield essentially finishing the year on the DL, then they're in LA LA land. If they don't sign Curt Schilling or someone capable of putting up a sub-4.00 ERA while being a good bet to make 25+ starts, then I wouldn't be surprised if we see Kyle Snyder or Devern Hansack in the rotation for long stretches next season and that's not going to get it done.

I mean, I hope Matsuzaka turns around and becomes a decent #2 starter next year, but I think counting on that is the sole province of rose-colored glassesville. He could just as easily end up pitching all next year the same way he did in the second half now that the league has adjusted to him and thus be more of a #4 than a #2.

I'm comfortable saying Schilling at 1 year for roughly $13 million is far and away the best free agent option. Perhaps they think they can swindle someone in a trade with our rapidly deteriorating farm system depth (trading Lester or Buchholz for a veteran #2 just leaves you with a more proven option, it doesn't add to depth), but that seems far less optimal to me. Unless they can trade Lowrie and Masterson for Chris Young or something, I don't see the trade market as bearing much fruit. One thing that the wild card plus revenue sharing has done is make nearly everyone believe they have a chance to compete as of December.