Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I don't think that's right at all. The lesson they learned was not to go hog wild and overpay for middling talent.
I don't think they think Hamilton's middling talent. If they did, they wouldn't have tried to get him on a 3-year deal.
Middling might not be the right word
want more churning of the current roster, not simply shoring up the holes.
The point here is that all of the moves provide some payroll flexibility next year and the year after, and massive flexibility in 3 years.
If we are going to be mediocre I want fresher, younger mediocrity with upside that can restore what Bud has called "hope and faith".
The point of the 3-year deal issue is precisely to allow for maximum flexibility should the younger guys coming up in 2013/2014/2015 break out, you aren't on the hook for a long-term deal with Dempster, Napoli, or Victorino.
The Lackey and Crawford deals were not problems in year 4-7. They were problems in year 1, because the Red Sox did a bad job assessing the health and/or skills of the players involved.
But this is pretty suboptimal. A GM should be able to convert 2013 $'s into 2014/2015+ talent. With tens of millions of 2013 dollars you should be able to do better than simply not hurting your chances in 2015.
I'm not ready to concede the first point, though I agree with the second. I think a very, very significant part of why those deals were problems are the tails of them - the payroll obligation for years and years.
It's not like Pujols is available right now. If he was and the Sox didn't make a serious effort to sign him to play 1B, I'd think they had no interest in winning.
I don't believe for a sec that the Sox would entertain the thought of giving Pujols the contract he got. Just IMO.
Is that a positive or a negative?
The Red Sox received an unwanted object lesson over the last couple of years in what happens when huge long-term contracts go bad. The Tommy John surgeries for John Lackey and Carl Crawford tied the team’s hands in dramatic fashion, and when Josh Beckett’s shoulder and Adrian Gonzalez’s inexplicably unraveling offensive approach impacted their ability to produce, the Sox faced the prospect of several years of disappointment.
though the club will be mindful that even when it finds such a player -- as the team thought was the case with Gonzalez -- it might be wrong.
But what I want to point out here is that, while everyone else's problems are attributed to injuries, Gonzalez's are "inexplicable." I hope to expand on this in a separate post, but Gonzalez has not been the same hitter since he hurt his shoulder in May 2010. He had an injury that the Red Sox seemed to ignore when giving him a huge deal.
Isn't it better if a team goes out and gets a bunch 2 year contract mercs*, then a star on a 7 year contract? Unless they are absolutely sure that this guy they are getting is mentally strong enough to handle it? Preferably even a Sabathia, who wasn't with his original team.
2007 - .220
2008 - .231
2009 - .273
2010 - .213
2011 - .210
I don't follow. Why could they not have afforded Gonzo? Are you assuming that Crawford and Lackey would have been on much higher AAV deals because of the hypothetically shorter length and therefore the Sox would be butting up against the luxury tax cap?
In this parallel universe where the Sox only offered Crawford three years, I have to believe he simply signs with the Angels instead. Lackey probably goes elsewhere too, if the best offer the Sox make is something like 3/$55M. Don't most guys just take the higher total contract value instead of worrying about AAV when they're in that position?
"Dempster's fine. There's a reason that nobody would give him three years, though. He had Tommy John surgery back in 2003. Elbows tend not to last very long -- somewhere usually between seven and 10 years or so. We're getting to the 10th year of his elbow holding at this point. I know that the medicals on him turned out all right, but there was still quite a bit of concerns from other teams about his arm holding up. Especially with all the sliders he throws. You'll see, he throws about one-third of his pitches are sliders, and those can be very, very harmful on the arm. I think that was the big question mark about Dempster and the reason that nobody gave him a third year. You just hope for the Red Sox' sake he lasts two."
Has anyone ever heard anything about 7-10 years for TJ elbows?
I love the idea that if you just have a lot of money and spend it according to the most optimal (optimistic?) models you'll just crank out a winner next year and beyond. If that's all it took, why wouldn't every team just do it?
Dempster's fine. There's a reason that nobody would give him three years, though. He had Tommy John surgery back in 2003. Elbows tend not to last very long -- somewhere usually between seven and 10 years or so.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (10 members)
Page rendered in 0.7652 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed