Jump to content


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

SOSH

OK we're back on our main server.  It was taking a super long time to move *everything* back just to save a day's worth of messages.  I've been at this all day now and need to get back to my real job so.,... sorry.  Working on a better plan in case this happens again.  nip

Photo

Sox trade Gonzalez, Crawford, Beckett, Punto, and $12 million to Dodgers is DONE


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
445 replies to this topic

#1 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 14457 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:17 AM

Early this morning, the Red Sox and Dodgers concluded a blockbuster deal in which the Red Sox shipped four players – Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett, Carl Crawford and Nick Punto – in exchange for a massive relief in salary as well as four minor-leaguers and first baseman James Loney, according to a Red Sox source.
The deal will be worth in excess of $275 million to the Red Sox including luxury tax savings and salaries for the remainder of this season and beyond. Over the next six years, the Dodgers will receive $12 million from the Red Sox, with the payments to begin next year.
Through a mixture of underperformance and bad seeds in the clubhouse, the Red Sox, out of the playoffs mix since 2009, have needed a massive overhaul that most thought would begin in the offseason.
The Dodgers, under new ownership, sped up that timetable by making waiver claims this month.
There will be much more to come throughout the day about the deal.


Michael Silverman

http://www.bostonher...sports/red_sox/

#2 mwonow

  • 1358 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:21 AM

That's truly stunning. Next year, here we come! Lots of flexibility now, lots of options. But quick - who has the compass?

EDIT - it's funny, but when I woke up this morning, I was thinking "well, at least the Sox can build some lineup length around Pedey, Gonzales, and Papi - add a righty with reasonable power (like Ross), and the middle of the order will be a handful every time around.

WIth Gonzo gone and Ortiz old(-ish), it'w a different challenge. Still, though, "blow it up" seemed like the best option - and I can hear the "boom" all the way to Ontario cottage country!

Edited by mwonow, 25 August 2012 - 08:28 AM.


#3 saintnick912


  • GINO!


  • 3369 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:22 AM

Is this now the highlight of Nick Punto's career, to forever be mentioned in one of the biggest trades of all time? I like it, my thought on the Gonzalez claim was "yeah right, only if they take back Crawford and Beckett along with him". Ben Cherington has put his foot in my mouth.

edit: On the record, please no Grienke or Hamilton this offseason or I'll be as puzzled as I was at the Lackey/Crawford signings.

Edited by saintnick912, 25 August 2012 - 08:23 AM.


#4 Gash Prex

  • 1067 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:23 AM

You know, other than the good but not great production of Gonzalez, the team doesn't lose much, if anything for on field production from this year. Does this mean we get to bring some kids up to play?

#5 MiracleOfO2704


  • not AWOL


  • 2325 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:25 AM

And the smear campaign starts from the Glob via Cafardo:
http://www.boston.co...upQO/story.html

The Dodgers would get their power-hitting first baseman in Gonzalez (who has a limited no-trade, but not to the Dodgers), a good defensive player but one who was part of the chemistry problem in the Boston clubhouse, a starting pitcher in Beckett who would solidify the middle of their rotation, Crawford for next season, and Punto as a utilityman.


Gonzalez had become a whiner who seemed to be involved in starting a group to complain about Valentine. He seemed to have an opinion on everything, and rubbed his managers the wrong way. Gonzalez was never the guy we thought he was supposed to be, no leadership skills whatsoever.



#6 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 10566 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:25 AM

I'll miss Gonzalez but Fuckin-A.

#7 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8909 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:28 AM

NO TAKE-BACKS!!!!

Only $12 million?? Fantastic. Amazing.

Sweet that we don't start paying the $12 million till next year-- does this get us under the luxury tax for 2012? That seemed truly impossible a couple of days ago.

Fantastic trade for the Red Sox. And there's no reason they shouldn't contend for the playoffs next year either. If Lester, Buchholz, Ellsbury, Ortiz and Pedroia have years that are similar to their typical career numbers, then the nucleus should be enough to get over .500.

#8 ShaneTrot

  • 4423 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:33 AM

I understand the Dodgers wanting Gonzalez and taking Beckett's salary as the price for him but taking Crawford as well seems like a huge risk. I like Crawford but he is getting paid like a superstar and the production plus the continuous injuries would give me pause if I were the Dodgers.

#9 someoneanywhere

  • 3056 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:34 AM

That's go to be $12 million per, or $72 million over six years. Still a good deal, I think, but Silverman needs to be clear about that part.

#10 LeoCarrillo


  • Do his bits at your peril.


  • 4600 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:34 AM

Let's all thank the Giants for sweeping LA last week.

#11 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 4686 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:34 AM

EDIT - it's funny, but when I woke up this morning, I was thinking "well, at least the Sox can build some lineup length around Pedey, Gonzales, and Papi - add a righty with reasonable power (like Ross), and the middle of the order will be a handful every time around.



In what fucking time zone did you fall asleep??

#12 EdRalphRomero


  • wooderson


  • 2285 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:37 AM

That's go to be $12 million per, or $72 million over six years. Still a good deal, I think, but Silverman needs to be clear about that part.


That was beyond not-clear in the article. I absolutely read it as a total of $12 MM. That is really too bad. Is there a link to an article that is more clear on the financial terms?

#13 dylanmarsh

  • 4561 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:37 AM

That's go to be $12 million per, or $72 million over six years. Still a good deal, I think, but Silverman needs to be clear about that part.


That's what I was thinking. Still, that's about one season each of CC and Adrian plus Beckett's contract payable over six years. Perfect.

#14 Future Sox Doc

  • 924 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:38 AM

That was beyond not-clear in the article. I absolutely read it as a total of $12 MM. That is really too bad. Is there a link to an article that is more clear on the financial terms?


It's 12 million total.
What a fantastic trade.

#15 Corsi


  • Wes Chamberlain's Sasha Rockets


  • 8274 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:39 AM

That's go to be $12 million per, or $72 million over six years. Still a good deal, I think, but Silverman needs to be clear about that part.


Multiple reports last night had it as $12M TOTAL.

#16 dylanmarsh

  • 4561 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:39 AM

That's what I was thinking. Still, that's about one season each of CC and Adrian plus Beckett's contract payable over six years. Perfect.


Heyman is saying $12mm total. Holy shit it's Christmas!

#17 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 4686 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:40 AM

It's 12m paid over 6 years. Payments start next year per Silverman. So probably 2m per year.

http://www.bostonher...sports/red_sox/

#18 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 14457 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:43 AM

It's absolutely clear in his blog posting. He said the Red Sox are saving $275 million so that indicates that it is $12 million total.

Edited by RedOctober3829, 25 August 2012 - 08:43 AM.


#19 Tony C


  • SoSH Member


  • 8170 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:47 AM

This trade is...beyond amazing. Clean out all of (er..most of) Theo's bad deals. The price of losing a decent deal in Gonzalez is negligible, in my opinion. I think Gonzo will be excellent in L.A., but the Sox are already paying a premium for his services -- more than anyone else was willing to pay just 2 years ago. He has produced and will produce, but making that a 2 year deal and losing the last 5 is acceptable -- they should be able to spend free agent money in a way that is nearly as productive. Sucks to lose him. But...also losing one bad contract and one albatross contract makes this christmas day. Add in the 2 good arms in Webster and de la Rosa...wow! Amazing.

#20 Gash Prex

  • 1067 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:47 AM

Last night all reports were 95% of salaries assumed by Dodgers - which lines right up with the 12 million

#21 kozaitis

  • 144 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:51 AM

I thought Peter Abraham had the best tweet of the deal:

Somebody call Mo Green at the Tropicana. Larry Lucchino is on the way. All family business being settled today.

#22 saintnick912


  • GINO!


  • 3369 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:51 AM

12M could account for the 6-9 months that Crawford will be out, matches up with his contract if you squint right.

#23 someoneanywhere

  • 3056 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:51 AM

It's absolutely clear in his blog posting. He said the Red Sox are saving $275 million so that indicates that it is $12 million total.


Heavens. Or to be exclamatory, you've got to be fucking kidding me.

They must have needed some cash to repave McCourt's parking lots.


#24 dynomite

  • 4324 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:52 AM

Probably the biggest single trade in Red Sox franchise history since Ruth, right?

I still can't quite believe this happened. This deal sounds like a bad talk radio idea, something to get people calling in and give the hosts something to talk about to fill airtime. Much later there will be other questions I want to talk about. (For example, isn't this trade a searing indictment of the entire baseball operations department and their methodology? And why trade Lars Anderson if this was a possibility?)

For now, however, I'm simply amazed. In an afternoon, Cherington saved my favorite franchise from a decade of irrelevance and ill-will.

#25 Corsi


  • Wes Chamberlain's Sasha Rockets


  • 8274 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 08:57 AM

Adrian Gonzalez expected to be in #dodgers starting lineup tonight

https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/239360035841507329 mabrowndog is a dingus

#26 Gash Prex

  • 1067 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:00 AM

So what's the conversation between Theo and Ben like next time they talk ?



#27 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 4686 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:01 AM

When Ben calls Theo, it needs to go like this...

"Barzini is dead. So is Phillip Tattaglia. Moe Greene. Stracci. Cuneo. Today I settled all family business so don’t tell me that you’re innocent. Admit what you did....just send me Rizzo"

#28 Laser Show

  • 2990 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:01 AM

Anyone else think it's hilarious that Josh Beckett and Hanley Ramirez are now on the same team?

#29 SpacemanzGerbil

  • 2853 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:07 AM

Apparently, NedCo has completely lost his fucking mind.

#30 pjr

  • 421 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:07 AM

This was just posted on MLB Trade Rumors.

Dylan Hernandez of The Los Angeles Times reports (on Twitter) that the deal is not yet official and reports of it being complete are premature.

#31 terrisus

  • 3379 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:08 AM

And why trade Lars Anderson if this was a possibility?


I wonder if we had any clue at all a month ago that this was a possibility.
Either way, even if we had thought something may be possible, seems pretty unbelievable this all took place through waivers.

#32 Pearl Wilson


  • SoSH Member


  • 5709 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:08 AM

This was just posted on MLB Trade Rumors.

Dylan Hernandez of The Los Angeles Times reports (on Twitter) that the deal is not yet official and reports of it being complete are premature.


Has Selig weighed in yet?

#33 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 4686 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:09 AM

Yea, so the commish has given the verbal and there is some paperwork that needs to push through...They're sewing "Gonzalez" on a home uniform right now.

#34 amarshal2

  • 2564 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:11 AM

ESPN's wording suggests that it's 98% done. Boston.com suggests it's 98% done. So it's real close but it's not done.

Edited by amarshal2, 25 August 2012 - 09:16 AM.


#35 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 8909 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:14 AM

The Glob still has their headline as the Sox "on the verge" of the trade. Red Sox official site mentions the trade talks but nothing official there eithere.

I assumed when the other thread got locked that it realyl was official. It's not yet. Hopefulyl it will be soon. Please please let's make this official ASAP, if this falls through I don't think I can take it.

#36 fineyoungarm


  • ask me how to be redundant!


  • 3345 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:14 AM

So, what's the impact of this on the Ellsbury situation? Any urgency to move him (for young pitching?), because not enough $$$ to re-sign him, is pretty much gone. And that gives the FO 2013 to see which player he is - 2011 or perennially prone to injury guy? If 2013 is like 2011 and the FO wants him long term, the team has the $$$ to out bid any team - assuming he does not want to play for the Mariners no matter what per the Cafardo geographic center of gravity theory?

I suppose the Hamilton talk now moves into high gear. I know a bit about addiction (and wish I had a better handle on sabermetrics instead), and the importance of established surroundings, friends and support groups is huge to those in recovery. If TX offers him a competitive contract to any "high bidders", my thought is that he stays. If he leaves, buyer beware.

#37 twothousandone

  • 2692 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:16 AM

I think Gonzo will be excellent in L.A., but the Sox are already paying a premium for his services -- more than anyone else was willing to pay just 2 years ago.

Since it was a trade, then he re-signed, I'm not sure that's correct. And Fielder and Pujols signed for more after him. I think one can claim Gonzalez is on a good contract. So, add an overpaid Beckett (who can pitch in the post-season and may find what's missing) and "replace" Kelly and Rizzo with de la Rosa and Webster, and the Dodgers can say it's a fair swap. But the Red Sox won't give up Gonzalez in something "fair" so LA has to add more. And it turns out the "more" was agreeing to pay Carl Crawford $15 million a year for the next five years. The extra $2 million Crawford makes comes from the Sox.

(Loney for Punto is sort of an even swap at this point in the season, since Punto has another year and Loney had no place to play anymore.)

Even with the FA bidding, it seemed no one other than Boston thought Crawford was worth $17 million -- I think $15milion/year was already on the table. So LA agreed to pay Crawford "market value" based on his value two years ago (a horrible year, and one TJ surgery later), and add a couple more prospects. That's a great deal for Boston, especially since what are now years four and five look even shakier.

#38 SoxVindaloo

  • 777 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:16 AM

Yea, so the commish has given the verbal and there is some paperwork that needs to push through...They're sewing "Gonzalez" on a home uniform right now.

Christmas! I will miss Adrian but he made a shitton of money and I was not anxious to see him in 2016-2018 at that salary.

As for Jacoby--don't you ride out 2013 now unless Natstown or someone bowls you over in the offseason? No need to dump him for salary relief, and maybe he shows that 2011 is part of his injury free prime rather than an aberration.

Edited by SoxVindaloo, 25 August 2012 - 09:19 AM.


#39 kartvelo

  • 3666 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:17 AM

So, not DONE... but ALIVE?

#40 BosRedSox5


  • doesn't use Google


  • 798 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:17 AM

How come no one else is reporting this as a done deal? I mean, at this point, I'd be surprised to see it fall apart, but no one else is saying this is done. Until I see Gonzalez in a Dodgers jersey, I'm going to remain skeptical.

#41 bankshot1


  • SoSH Member


  • 6642 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:17 AM

ESPN's wording suggests that it's 98% done. Boston.com suggests it's 98% done. So it's real close but it's not done.


I think Bowie Kuhn still has to give his blessing to this blockbuster

#42 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 5040 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:18 AM

$12 million per year going to the Dodgers would have been fair given the prospects coming back; that would basically make Crawford 5 years at $9 million per (a 55 million subsidy), and spread out the second year of Beckett's contract over the next 6 ($17 million for a total of the 6*12). I am not going to believe it is just $12 million total until I see a long-form copy of the trade agreement.

This trade provides an opportunity, should the team choose to accept it, and nothing more. It is currently just a salary and attitude dump. The team's talent base is significantly lower than it was at this time yesterday morning. They are right now perhaps the worst team in the American League except the Mariners. Plus, there is no clear plan to raise that talent base to the level of the Rangers or Yankees in the near-term.

I hate what this means for the team's competitiveness over the near-term and tremble about its implications given the lack of success they have had in developing starting pitchers or making sensible signings of mid-tier free agents (uh-hem, Cameron, Jenks, Punto), but from a business standpoint John Henry has got to be giddy. But, if they make the wrong decisions, or if they just pocket the savings under the guise of "learning their lesson about big contracts" then they'll be also rans for a half-decade, with the implications for attendance and television ratings that could end up costing Henry more than what he just saved.

So, nice job Ben, now tell me how you're going to avoid missing the playoffs for a fourth consecutive year in 2013. With the free agent world weak, that means using those pieces from the Dodgers plus some of the team's own prospects intelligently. This is a much more competitive world than it was in 1983 or in 1997 when I was content to watch a terrible team because I loved my Red Sox. Ratings and atttendence are likely to fall much more than a statistical model based on historical relationships to wins and position in the standings would dictate. If I wanted to watch minor league baseball, I can do it by walking up the street and sitting in a outside stadium on beautiful summer nights instead of being holed up in a basement watching minor league baseball masquerading as major league. I am sure others will make similar choices, and they won't all be "pink hats."

Edited by Plympton91, 25 August 2012 - 09:52 AM.


#43 Hendu's Gait


  • 3/5's member


  • PipPipPip
  • 7918 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:20 AM

It's absolutely clear in his blog posting. He said the Red Sox are saving $275 million so that indicates that it is $12 million total.

This trade is...beyond amazing. Clean out all of (er..most of) Theo's bad deals. The price of losing a decent deal in Gonzalez is negligible, in my opinion. I think Gonzo will be excellent in L.A., but the Sox are already paying a premium for his services -- more than anyone else was willing to pay just 2 years ago. He has produced and will produce, but making that a 2 year deal and losing the last 5 is acceptable -- they should be able to spend free agent money in a way that is nearly as productive. Sucks to lose him. But...also losing one bad contract and one albatross contract makes this christmas day. Add in the 2 good arms in Webster and de la Rosa...wow! Amazing.


Last night I was a little disappointed that it was Webster and not Lee joiningg dlR. But now hearing $2 per year is it. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

All apologies to Ben and Lucky! Bye bye Nicky! Now if we could just get a taker for Lackey . . .

#44 Pearl Wilson


  • SoSH Member


  • 5709 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:21 AM

If it happens, it will be known from this day onward as "The Punto Trade".

#45 P'tucket, rhymes with...


  • SoSH Member


  • 7473 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:23 AM

I suppose the Hamilton talk now moves into high gear. I know a bit about addiction (and wish I had a better handle on sabermetrics instead), and the importance of established surroundings, friends and support groups is huge to those in recovery. If TX offers him a competitive contract to any "high bidders", my thought is that he stays. If he leaves, buyer beware.


You're right, and it's an interesting paradox. If he's dumb enough to walk away from the support system that has (mostly) kept him going in recent years, I don't really want him on my team.

Having said that, if there's one FO in the majors arrogant enough to think they can replace his support system de novo and take a chance on him, it's ours.

#46 bombdiggz

  • 984 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:23 AM

I wanted to bring in some discussion from the "Blockbuster" thread regarding the 2013-2014 Red Sox.

However the fans are going to have to get used to a team that is, perhaps, years away from serious contention...The point is, this deal makes the Sox also-rans not just for this year but likely over the next few seasons.


Among some, there seems to be a sense that the Red Sox won't be able to field a competitive team over the next several seasons. I'd suggest that we really take a look at what we lost and what we have to replace.

First let's start with the most fungible piece, Nick Punto. I don't like Nick Punto, never have, never will, but I never undesrstood the Punto vitriol around these parts. He was a backup middle infielder on a short money deal. I'm not sold on Ciriaco as a full time player, but his emergence has certainly made Punto expendable. We get to punt(o) his contract with a viable replacement in house. Nothing not to like there.

I'm onboard with thinking Crawford returns to being a useful player at some point, but how likely is it that he is worth the 100+ M over the next five years? Furthermore, over the past two years he has added a cumulative total of .6 WAR and he carries significantly more injury risk going forward. Who thinks that we are going to be hard pressed to replace that production? Give Sands a chance this year, then move him to 1B next year and give Kalish/Linares a shot. I'd be shocked if we didn't get better production for less cash.

Beckett was great last year. Not so great this year. His velocity has been down. He is 32. Is he more likely to be 2011 Beckett or 2012 Beckett going forward? Is he worth 32 M? We have Lackey coming back from injury and have added two pretty nice pitching prospects that are close to contributing. I like our chances of replacing Beckett's production and it's tough to get value out of your rotation when you are locked in to long term deals to declining players.

Gonzalez is a legitimate middle of the order hitter on a reasonable deal and a he's got a great glove to boot. It's going to be a challenge to replace Gonzalez's production and presence. This is the only part of the trade that really isn't merely addition by subtraction, but it's still questionable how the back end of this deal is going to look. We now have a lot of resources to address the situation, as well as the roster and financial flexibility to address other shortcomings and find value.

Edited by bombdiggz, 25 August 2012 - 09:27 AM.


#47 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 15976 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:24 AM

I like this trade for both teams.

I think Beckett is worth the money almost anywhere except for here where for better or worse he just seems checked out. There are some peripherals that are concerning but fundamentally I think he will be helped going somewhere else. Playing in the big NL West parks he might feel the ability to be a bit more aggressive. I think people are going to bemoan his Dodgers numbers as evidence of him not trying enough here and caring more about golf. And actually I still think he could have turned it around as a Red Sox (he was very good last year) but probably the risk wasn't going to be worth it.

Crawford for all the same reasons that we didn't think was a great fit as a superstar Red Sox can be a superstar Dodger. Again with the big parks his defensive acumen will get shown off more. And I think for whatever reason good or bad he tried to be a different player here and it didn't work out for him. In LALAland he can hit second or third and do all the stuff he thinks he can do and he could blossom back into the player Theo thought he was signing. As well, he was playing well before deciding to get the surgery. I don't know if he'll be a $22 million player but I think he will be very very good for the Dodgers.

Gonzalez of course is a great player and seems to have finally fixed what was ailing him.

Punto gives them the market on future Ugandan ballplayers.

Sox get the salary relief they need to be flexible in the market. I still think the biggest mistake of the past two years comes from ownership and LL not understanding the implications of what was going on with the CBA negotiations - or ignoring it. Whichever it was caused this huge mess and that's on them and them alone. Yes, I realize they may have been caught by surprise (I was) but their job is to understand the ebb and flow of these things and to take logical risks based on that. They didn't. And now here we are. I firmly believe that with the previous CBA rule there would have been a much different tenor to the past off-season and that this trade would not have been necessary.

#48 hitatater

  • 106 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:25 AM

Exclusive of the smear campaign against Gonzo (what-the-fuck!) the detail I'm truly waiting to hear is how Punto got included.

I'm picturing his name, hand-written in one of the communications, in really, really small print. With the subsequent round of negotiations, the Red Sox brass screams out triumphantly, "No! He's in there fair and square! It's like a pinky promise! You get him!!"

#49 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 14457 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:25 AM

$12 million per year going to the Dodgers would have been fair given the prospects coming back; that would basically make Crawford 5 years at $9 million per (a 55 million subsidy), and spread out the second year of Beckett's contract over the next 6 ($17 million for a total of the 6*12). I am not going to believe it is just $12 million total until I see a long-form copy of the trade agreement.

This trade provides an opportunity, should the team choose to accept it, and nothing more. It is currently just a salary and attitude dump. The team's talent base is significantly lower than it was at this time yesterday morning. They are right now perhaps the worst team in the American League. Plus, there is no clear plan to raise that talent base to the level of the Rangers or Yankees in the near-term.

I hate what this means for the team's competitiveness over the near-term and tremble about its implications given the lack of success they have had in developing starting pitchers or making sensible signings of mid-tier free agents (uh-hem, Cameron, Jenks, Punto), but from a business standpoint John Henry has got to be giddy. But, if they make the wrong decisions, or if they just pocket the savings under the guise of "learning their lesson about big contracts" then they'll be also rans for a decade, with the implications for attendance and television ratings that could end up costing Henry more than what he just saved.

So, nice job Ben, now tell me how you're going to avoid missing the playoffs for a fourth consecutive year in 2013. This is a much more competitive world than it was in 1983 or in 1997 when I was content to watch a terrible team because I loved my Red Sox. Ratings and atttendence are likely to fall much more than a statistical model based on historical relationships to wins and position in the standings would dictate. If I wanted to watch minor league baseball, I can do it by walking up the street and sitting in a outside stadium on beautiful summer nights instead of being holed up in a basement watching minor league baseball masquerading as major league. I am sure others will make similar choices, and they won't all be "pink hats."


They just made the trade. How about give them time to develop short-term and long-term plans? I think everybody realizes that they are going to take a step back before getting better. Again, I'm not sure how Silverman could have made himself more clear with the $12 million total going to the Dodgers. He would not have said that they are saving $275 million by unloading the players involved. Why does this deal have to be fair? If the Dodgers are willing to take on all of that salary, then let them do that.

I don't think anyone is expecting playoffs in 2013 at this point. I hope they have "learned their lesson about big contracts". Develop talent from within and sign free agents to deals that make sense. Do they have big decision to make? Of course they do. Is this just an opportunity to make things right again? Yes. Let's let this play out first before we go and kill them.

#50 Wills Eeks


  • internets quarterback style


  • 3408 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:26 AM

Since it was a trade, then he re-signed, I'm not sure that's correct. And Fielder and Pujols signed for more after him. I think one can claim Gonzalez is on a good contract. So, add an overpaid Beckett (who can pitch in the post-season and may find what's missing) and "replace" Kelly and Rizzo with de la Rosa and Webster, and the Dodgers can say it's a fair swap. But the Red Sox won't give up Gonzalez in something "fair" so LA has to add more. And it turns out the "more" was agreeing to pay Carl Crawford $15 million a year for the next five years. The extra $2 million Crawford makes comes from the Sox.

(Loney for Punto is sort of an even swap at this point in the season, since Punto has another year and Loney had no place to play anymore.)

Even with the FA bidding, it seemed no one other than Boston thought Crawford was worth $17 million -- I think $15milion/year was already on the table. So LA agreed to pay Crawford "market value" based on his value two years ago (a horrible year, and one TJ surgery later), and add a couple more prospects. That's a great deal for Boston, especially since what are now years four and five look even shakier.


Isn't Crawford's deal $20mm p.a. from here on out?

They are right now perhaps the worst team in the American League.


They went from a projected 90 win team or whatever to losing three players (one of whom has barely played this year and was awful last year) and becoming the worst team perhaps in the AL. Quite a drop.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users