Jump to content


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

Photo

Scutaro to Rockies?


This topic has been archived.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

#51 Towney007

  • 222 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:32 AM

I don't mind Jackson, I just don't think he should be considered. He won't take a one year deal.

Oswalt I'd love to have, I just don't know if he'll come here. I hate Rodriguez's contract. So to me - this is Oswalt or bust at this point.

#52 walkoffblast

  • 779 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 12:33 PM

Turns out trading Scutaro saved around 7.67 mil against the luxury tax this year instead of around 6 mil. When I read the CBA I couldn't figure out why everyone had his deal at 2/12.5 instead of 3/14 for AAV purposes and it turns out I wasn't missing a clause.

#53 MikeM

  • 841 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 02:34 PM

Oswalt I'd love to have, I just don't know if he'll come here. I hate Rodriguez's contract. So to me - this is Oswalt or bust at this point.


That Oswalt is now reportedly out there turning down offers from the Tigers isn't boding well for us, imo.

Like pretty much everything else this winter, i still see the media driving this interest train on Oswalt more so then then the Sox FO.

#54 TOleary25

  • 331 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 03:23 PM

That Oswalt is now reportedly out there turning down offers from the Tigers isn't boding well for us, imo.

Like pretty much everything else this winter, i still see the media driving this interest train on Oswalt more so then then the Sox FO.


It's very strange to me that they would move Scutaro without a definite agreement with Oswalt or a trade. Seems completely ass backwards to me. They'll look pretty foolish if they aren't able to swing a deal for a Oswalt/Floyd type.

#55 MikeM

  • 841 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 06:22 PM

It's very strange to me that they would move Scutaro without a definite agreement with Oswalt or a trade. Seems completely ass backwards to me. They'll look pretty foolish if they aren't able to swing a deal for a Oswalt/Floyd type.


Again, it's only ass backwards in the event the decision to trade Scutaro was soley made on a desire to sign Oswalt. In the grander scheme of things as they stand now, i believe it's reasonable to give Ben the benefit of the doubt that's not the case there.

Now if we turn around and hand most or all of that $$$ to Cody Ross, that's a different story imo.

#56 jackno

  • 58 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 07:04 PM

Again, it's only ass backwards in the event the decision to trade Scutaro was soley made on a desire to sign Oswalt. In the grander scheme of things as they stand now, i believe it's reasonable to give Ben the benefit of the doubt that's not the case there.

Now if we turn around and hand most or all of that $$$ to Cody Ross, that's a different story imo.


Agreed, I am confused by the complete lack of faith in Cherington. I think he has done a good job of cleaning up after Theo's free agent mess. I feel we keep looking at each of these moves in a vacuum. I think the guy has a plan and he is mandated to do it within a budget. I am willing to give this all a chance. When I think about it, the "worst offseason ever" were the ones when we pissed away money on Lackey, Crawford, Drew, Lugo, Rentawreck, etc.

#57 Cellar-Door


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,831 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 08:13 PM

Again, it's only ass backwards in the event the decision to trade Scutaro was soley made on a desire to sign Oswalt. In the grander scheme of things as they stand now, i believe it's reasonable to give Ben the benefit of the doubt that's not the case there.

Now if we turn around and hand most or all of that $$$ to Cody Ross, that's a different story imo.


Seems unlikely we give him much since Rubin tweeted the Mets, considered the other strong contender, didn't want to spend more than $1MM on him.
https://twitter.com/#!/AdamRubinESPN/status/161576678542409729
link to tweet
link to tweet

#58 Tyrone Biggums


  • nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion in colorado,


  • 3,557 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 08:24 PM

That Oswalt is now reportedly out there turning down offers from the Tigers isn't boding well for us, imo.

Like pretty much everything else this winter, i still see the media driving this interest train on Oswalt more so then then the Sox FO.


I would disagree, especially since the Yankees grabbed Kuroda, this is one ownership that values ratings very highly. I think with the Patriots in the Superbowl and the Bruins playing well they will feel the need to keep in the news somehow. That being said, Oswalt turning down the Tigers is very interesting indeed, I think perhaps it could mean the Sox and Oswalt have an understanding of how much it would take to get him here, and he has been asked to give them a little time to clear salary. Far fetched? Sure but it wouldn't be the first time someone would agree to hold off on signing until another move happened.

This could all be avoided if we just got some team (Cubs?) to take on Jenks.

#59 MikeM

  • 841 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 09:04 PM

Seems unlikely we give him much since Rubin tweeted the Mets, considered the other strong contender, didn't want to spend more than $1MM on him.

https://twitter.com/#!/AdamRubinESPN/status/161576678542409729
link to tweet
link to tweet


If it's under $2m it'll be a pretty solid upside move in itself imo. Especially given the current roster makeup, and my less then optimistic feelings on CC going forward.

#60 MikeM

  • 841 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 09:16 PM

I would disagree, especially since the Yankees grabbed Kuroda, this is one ownership that values ratings very highly. I think with the Patriots in the Superbowl and the Bruins playing well they will feel the need to keep in the news somehow. That being said, Oswalt turning down the Tigers is very interesting indeed, I think perhaps it could mean the Sox and Oswalt have an understanding of how much it would take to get him here, and he has been asked to give them a little time to clear salary. Far fetched? Sure but it wouldn't be the first time someone would agree to hold off on signing until another move happened.

This could all be avoided if we just got some team (Cubs?) to take on Jenks.


I'm not doubting on whether an actual effort would or is being made. I'm doubting whether it will be enough. Wanting Oswalt is one thing. Wanting him at the cost of putting in the winning offer he ends up accepting is quite another.

In the event Oswalt did end up signing with the Tigers (or whoever) on a re-counter bid, which essentially gets played off the Red Sox's best offer, would that really shock anybody atm?

#61 MikeM

  • 841 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 09:52 PM

Agreed, I am confused by the complete lack of faith in Cherington. I think he has done a good job of cleaning up after Theo's free agent mess. I feel we keep looking at each of these moves in a vacuum. I think the guy has a plan and he is mandated to do it within a budget. I am willing to give this all a chance. When I think about it, the "worst offseason ever" were the ones when we pissed away money on Lackey, Crawford, Drew, Lugo, Rentawreck, etc.



Yeah, the critisicm is way over-the-top imo. Especially out of the people that were naive enough to cheer that Crawford signing on last winter, without expressing the slightest concern over how much that could potentially fuck our finacial flexibility latter. Who have ZERO business flaming away at Ben for the job he's been doing this winter, yet it's some of them that are now crying the loudest ;)

At one time or another, every team (maybe minus the MFY) finds themselves in a position where they have to make unfavorable decisions, such as having to *gasp* dump salary you might otherwise hold on to under more ideal conditions. Theo himself summed it up best here back in 2003:


"Why are we fiscally responsible? Not because we are cheap; we are not. Not because we are afraid of large commitments; we are not. Not because we would rather pursue non-tenders or particularly enjoy reading through thousands of minor league free agent reports instead; we don't (well, maybe sometimes). Quite simply, we are fiscally responsible because the alternative would be a disaster. Fiscal irresponsibility is the single quickest way to hamstring a franchise for a decade."



Welcome to The Alternative.

(Theo will not be greeting you at the door btw)

#62 Stanley Steamer

  • 581 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:22 PM

I think we'll have to see how this season unfolds, and then the next offseason, before we have a good read on Ben Cherington. He certainly has less charisma or media presence than Theo, but I think of him as someone who analyzes similarly, just with less need to be in the limelight.

#63 Sampo Gida

  • 3,136 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:38 PM

Yeah, the critisicm is way over-the-top imo. Especially out of the people that were naive enough to cheer that Crawford signing on last winter, without expressing the slightest concern over how much that could potentially fuck our finacial flexibility latter. Who have ZERO business flaming away at Ben for the job he's been doing this winter, yet it's some of them that are now crying the loudest ;)


Ben of course said he supported the signing at the time.

Nobody of course predicted Crawford would play at replacement level. At best some of us dared say his defense would be wasted to some extent at Fenway and his hit charts suggested he would not take advantage of Fenways LF, and that the pressure of playing for the Red Sox might pose some challenges early on. Now it come out a bad wrist may have played some part in his poor performance. If so, a major regression by a healthy Crawford this year could add 5 Wins.

We may be giving the GM too much credit and blame for these big signings. Larry and the other owners play a key role in the decision making, and decisions to sign guys like Daisuke, Lackey and Crawford and go after players like A-Gon are likely part of a consensus. Theo alluded that the process in making such decisions was not working all that well.

I agree though that Ben is pretty much blameless for the spending contraints imposed on him. Like Buck Showalter said last year about Theo, it's pretty easy to look like a genius when you can spend freely, harder to look good when you have to control spending like small market teams. Of course, when you spend freely and lose, you look pretty bad. Likewise, when you have holes and can't fill them, or create new ones to fill others, you look bad.

That said, knowing that he was faced with a limited budget, he still chose to offer Papi arbitration, knowing it would cost him 12.5 million + with holes to fill at closer, SP'er and OF. Filling a hole at DH is much cheaper than these other positions. Of course, the decision to offer Papi arbitration might not have been Bens.

At one time or another, every team (maybe minus the MFY) finds themselves in a position where they have to make unfavorable decisions, such as having to *gasp* dump salary you might otherwise hold on to under more ideal conditions. Theo himself summed it up best here back in 2003:


The new CBA was not in existence last year when Crawford was signed, and makes staying under the luxury tax threshold more imperative. The team has been over the threshold before and willing/able to pay a few million in tax. Now the cost of paying the tax increases to what could be as much as 20 million or more in lost revenue sharing rebates.

The Red Sox are still one of the most profitable teams in baseball, even if they go over the salary tax threshold. Ownership has chosen to add to their profits and hold back spending in order to reduce their revenue sharing burden. Thats their right. Ben and Theo just have to take the bullets.

#64 pdub

  • 374 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 01:50 PM

FWIW, Rosenthal is reporting that we are looking to acquire a shortstop. Seriously, the SS position has been making my head SPIN these last few years. I was perfectly happy with Scutaro at SS for this year, I don't know what this team is planning these days.

#65 MikeM

  • 841 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 03:57 PM

Ben of course said he supported the signing at the time.

Nobody of course predicted Crawford would play at replacement level. At best some of us dared say his defense would be wasted to some extent at Fenway and his hit charts suggested he would not take advantage of Fenways LF, and that the pressure of playing for the Red Sox might pose some challenges early on. Now it come out a bad wrist may have played some part in his poor performance. If so, a major regression by a healthy Crawford this year could add 5 Wins.

We may be giving the GM too much credit and blame for these big signings. Larry and the other owners play a key role in the decision making, and decisions to sign guys like Daisuke, Lackey and Crawford and go after players like A-Gon are likely part of a consensus. Theo alluded that the process in making such decisions was not working all that well.

I agree though that Ben is pretty much blameless for the spending contraints imposed on him. Like Buck Showalter said last year about Theo, it's pretty easy to look like a genius when you can spend freely, harder to look good when you have to control spending like small market teams. Of course, when you spend freely and lose, you look pretty bad. Likewise, when you have holes and can't fill them, or create new ones to fill others, you look bad.

That said, knowing that he was faced with a limited budget, he still chose to offer Papi arbitration, knowing it would cost him 12.5 million + with holes to fill at closer, SP'er and OF. Filling a hole at DH is much cheaper than these other positions. Of course, the decision to offer Papi arbitration might not have been Bens.



The new CBA was not in existence last year when Crawford was signed, and makes staying under the luxury tax threshold more imperative. The team has been over the threshold before and willing/able to pay a few million in tax. Now the cost of paying the tax increases to what could be as much as 20 million or more in lost revenue sharing rebates.

The Red Sox are still one of the most profitable teams in baseball, even if they go over the salary tax threshold. Ownership has chosen to add to their profits and hold back spending in order to reduce their revenue sharing burden. Thats their right. Ben and Theo just have to take the bullets.



Yeah, i'm admittedly trying to convince myself that was simply an obligatory statement on Crawford out of Ben. As while i maintain the belief that a guy in his position has to be given an initial benefit of the doubt, there is that nagging question in keeping him on whether or not we stopped short with the necessary amount house cleaning that was done in the FO this winter. Which called for nothing less then a complete/utter overhaul in personal, and a fresh perspective of minds to do the top to bottom evaluations here.

John Henry on the otherhand stated earlier this winter that he was against the Crawford signing at the time, and while i get a lot of people didn't like seeing/hearing that, it made feel a little better about it. That might be an attempt to lure myself into a false sense of optimistic security as well, but i'm just going to run with it for now.

But in the attempt not to get too off topic here, i will state this. As somebody who wasn't a personal fan of the signing when it went down, i definately have to add Scutaro to the short list of free agent successes Theo *did* have over the years.

#66 roraazu

  • 33 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 11:09 PM

Funny



ifixbadcredit charles walters

twitter blowing up with hanley ramirez in boston for physical. I think boston found there ss


In Spanish from Dominicana

HECTOR GOMEZ @hgomez27
De último minuto: hay muchas posibilidades de que Hanley Ramírez sea cambiado esta tarde a los Medias Rojas. El está en Boston ahora mismo.

Edited by roraazu, 24 January 2012 - 11:11 PM.


#67 Towney007

  • 222 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 11:41 PM

I think people are short changing Epstein on this though. The Lackey move was clearly done to shore up a spot in the rotation in an attempt to bridge a gap to the next wave of high-profile talent in the farm system. The talent either didn't pan out or was traded and Lackey bombed. That of course, goes back on Epstein, but I think there was a method to the madness. It just failed. At least in that microcosm. Still, I think this team wins well north of 90 games this year. I think Cherington has been pretty great so far.

#68 scramer14

  • 10 posts

Posted 25 January 2012 - 12:34 AM

I think that we have to be optimistic in that the Sox will make the playoffs this year. If we have just a .500 Sept. last year then we cruis into the playoff. And I know we can play the if game all day, but other than losing Papelbon and trading Lowrie/Scutaro we the same team back that put on quite a show in the middle of the season. If the pitching steps up and no major injuries occur, you would have to believe that we will be in the playoffs easily. But, this is why the game is played on the field and not on paper. And does anyone have an update on the whole trading for Han-Ram speculation?

#69 Sampo Gida

  • 3,136 posts

Posted 26 January 2012 - 08:07 PM

John Henry on the otherhand stated earlier this winter that he was against the Crawford signing at the time, and while i get a lot of people didn't like seeing/hearing that, it made feel a little better about it. That might be an attempt to lure myself into a false sense of optimistic security as well, but i'm just going to run with it for now.


He said he was against it when it was first proposed but he ultimately signed off on it. Without Henry's approval, reluctant or not, a deal does not get done, since he is writing the checks. Where he was on the Lackey and Daisuke contracts, and where Theo was, we do not know.