Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 24, 2012

Dodgers reportedly win waiver claim on Gonzalez

The Los Angeles Dodgers have been awarded the waiver claim on Boston Red Sox first baseman Adrian Gonzalez, Bill Shaikin of The Los Angeles Times reported Friday. The report has been confirmed by CBSSports.com insider Jon Heyman

“This would make the race in the NL West more interesting and I wonder what effect this would have on the Dodger clubhouse”

The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: August 24, 2012 at 03:18 PM | 351 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, los angeles

Reader Comments and Retorts

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.

Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   101. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:48 PM (#4217251)
It's apparently - sadly - pronounced "Ruby".

Actually, no, wait, that's also a great name. I already love this. Please tell me he's a big fatty.
   102. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4217253)
He's a normal looking guy. At least he was before TJ.
   103. Into the Void Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4217255)
Why, what happened to him in Tijuana?
   104. Steve Treder Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4217256)
Jeff Passan writes:

Giving up Gonzalez, expected to be a linchpin with his seven-year, $154 million deal signed last year, was not in the Red Sox's plans until the Dodgers claimed him and Beckett off waivers and the framework of a deal started to come together.


OK, explain to me how it is that giving up Gonzalez was not in the Red Sox's plans and yet they placed him on waivers.
   105. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4217257)
Apparently, the Sox haven't gotten Beckett's or Crawford's permission yet. Seriously?

There's no chance that doesn't blow this up, is there? The Red Sox are going to screw this up. Why didn't they get the go-ahead first?
   106. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4217258)
I'd do this without hesitation if I'm them, but wow ... the Red Sox really aren't very good right now.

Kind of the end of an era -- one that unraveled in the blink of an eye.
   107. Sonic Youk Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4217259)
Thats an fine deal on paper, but i still have no idea where they find a first baseman in the foreseeable future. You cant put a big pile of money in uniform.
   108. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:51 PM (#4217261)
Obligatory tequila shooters.
   109. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:51 PM (#4217262)
?@GordonEdes CEO Larry Lucchino did say Ben Cherington was empowered to make bold moves
   110. Steve Treder Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:52 PM (#4217263)
This is the nuttiest waiver deal of all time and will probably be the nuttiest I ever see in my lifetime. Now, go Giants!

Concur.

Christ on a bicycle.
   111. tjm1 Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:52 PM (#4217264)
This is a pretty good haul for the Red Sox to get while also dumping two bad contracts. De La Rosa seems like the real deal, and Sands could probably be a useful back-up at least.
   112. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4217268)
@alexspeier Source: No deal will be done tonight between #redsox and #dodgers.
   113. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4217269)
You cant put a big pile of money in uniform.
Nope, but the Red Sox were projected to spend $120M for roughly $75M in value over 2013-2014 for these three guys. That's a ton of room to do a better job of spending that money. I think you go for it.

Obviously it's possible to #### this up, but I don't think you can turn it down. (Unless the Dodgers are actually getting tons of money, to a degree previously unreported.)
   114. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4217270)
De la Rosa has a nasty slider (90 mph with good break) and can pump the fastball into the upper 90s, if I remember right. I seem to remember he was a high K, high BB type guy when he pitched. But then he got injured and I forgot about him.
   115. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4217271)
I might be confusing the real Rubby for the fake one I created on MLB 12 the show.....
   116. McCoy Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4217272)
New owners like to spend money and it just so happens that MJ got the keys to the team midseason.
   117. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4217273)
@JeffPassan Currently the Red Sox have $106.9M on the books for next year. If they make this trade, their pre-arbitration obligations drop to $45.6M.

Of course, we haven't talked about the money they are supposedly kicking in.
   118. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4217275)
Apparently, the Sox haven't gotten Beckett's or Crawford's permission yet.


Wait, WHAT???!
   119. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4217276)
Also, count me in the camp that thinks this cements Bobby-V as the manager and someone who they are willing to go with for the foreseeable future.

I'm in this camp too, which is another reason my first reaction to hate this deal. I can't stand Bobby V. I'm also predicting that the Sox do include a boatload of cash, and that all three guys bounce back and play like stars next year, while we get to watch Bobby and "someone who knows" bad-mouth a new batch of bad-contract replacements.
If some or all of these things don't come to pass I may reconsider my position ...

   120. nick swisher hygiene Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:57 PM (#4217278)
wait, today is the day AFTER the Crawford operation [looks at calendar]!?

this could be top 10 weirdest deals in MLB history, no?
   121. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:58 PM (#4217279)
How did Buster Olney get in my feed. I thought I unfollowed him a long time ago.
   122. Roger McDowell spit on me! Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:59 PM (#4217281)
De la Rosa has a nasty slider (90 mph with good break) and can pump the fastball into the upper 90s, if I remember right.


That's about right from what I saw the other night against the Giants. He's on a 20 pitch limit right now since he's coming back from TJ, but could be a decent mid-rotation starter.
   123. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:00 PM (#4217283)
@nickcafardo: Source: Sox will have to wait approval of whether Josh Beckett will waive no trade. Indications are he will.
   124. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:00 PM (#4217284)
I'm in this camp too, which is another reason my first reaction to hate this deal. I can't stand Bobby V. I'm also predicting that the Sox do include a boatload of cash, and that all three guys bounce back and play like stars next year, while we get to watch Bobby and "someone who knows" bad-mouth a new batch of bad-contract replacements.


Well, A-Gone is gonna be fine. His deal was a steal and a bad half a season - followed by a monster 2nd half - should not get him traded. But man, punting the whole team (basically) is pretty ballsy of the FO. That text-message must have PISSED some folks off....

   125. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4217285)
Rubby De La Rosa may be the first Rubby in major-league baseball, but we should already know the name from Rubby Perez, brother of Neifi.
   126. Sonic Youk Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4217286)
Yea, these prospects are interesting. As someone who had already given up on 2013 and is probably way too high on the AA guys, this is the most interested ive been in months. Which is pretty pathetic.
   127. dirk Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:02 PM (#4217287)
oh man, oh man, oh man. i really hope this happens. three albatrosses off the books in one day! this is the absolute best thing that could happen to this team.
   128. Walt Davis Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:02 PM (#4217288)
Well, we made big fun of this deal when somebody wrote about it yssterday. Shows what I know.

Is Colletti still the GM in LA? Cuz dropping $200 M in payroll and getting to trade with Colletti just might be too good to pass up.
   129. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:02 PM (#4217289)
Apparently, the Sox haven't gotten Beckett's or Crawford's permission yet.

Wait, WHAT???!


Awesome. Was there any doubt they'd find a way to screw it up?

Amazing.




   130. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:03 PM (#4217290)
This seems good for the Red Sox, but too bad for Adrian Gonzalez who will now forever be lumped in as an "albatross" with the other two.
   131. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:03 PM (#4217291)
I'm in this camp too, which is another reason my first reaction to hate this deal. I can't stand Bobby V. I'm also predicting that the Sox do include a boatload of cash
Obviously it's a bad deal that we all hate if the Sox are paying the freight. But if they aren't, can you really make a good case against this as in pure baseball terms?
   132. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:03 PM (#4217292)
oh man, oh man, oh man. i really hope this happens. three albatrosses off the books in one day! this is the absolute best thing that could happen to this team.


I wouldn't consider Gonzalez' contract an albatross given the going rate for star first basemen is these days.
   133. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4217293)
Is Colletti still the GM in LA? Cuz dropping $200 M in payroll and getting to trade with Colletti just might be too good to pass up.


Yes, he's still the guy. You just KNOW Colletti is trying to find a way to get Lackey too. For Matt Kemp.
   134. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4217294)
Awesome. Was there any doubt they'd find a way to screw it up?

Amazing.


Maybe, but really, why would either guy block a trade to get them out of Boston at this point?
   135. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:05 PM (#4217295)
I wonder what Theo Epstein thinks of the Red Sox flushing his team down the toilet? I'm kidding about 75% on that. I'm sure he's got to feel a bit of a twinge about this.
   136. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:06 PM (#4217296)
Couldn't they have sent Jenny Dell to LA, too?
   137. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:06 PM (#4217297)
Colletti's (sp?) only saving grace was holding onto Kemp and Kershaw in the mid 2000s.
   138. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:06 PM (#4217298)
And sure enough, the geniuses directing the broadcast have her blathering as Ortiz doubles.
   139. andrewberg Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4217299)
Well, A-Gone is gonna be fine. His deal was a steal and a bad half a season - followed by a monster 2nd half - should not get him traded. But man, punting the whole team (basically) is pretty ballsy of the FO. That text-message must have PISSED some folks off....


I hope the narrative goes down this way. Trading a guy for a disparaging text is neo-steinbrenian
   140. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4217300)
It would be funny if the Red Sox tried to send Beckett to LA anyway if the trade falls apart, but he said "No, I don't think so." Of course, I don't really care about the Dodgers or the Red Sox.
   141. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:09 PM (#4217302)
Unless the Sox are sending along a metric ####-ton of cash, they're making this trade for baseball reasons first and foremost.
...
Obviously it's a bad deal that we all hate if the Sox are paying the freight. But if they aren't, can you really make a good case against this as in pure baseball terms?


Maybe I don't understand the term 'baseball' but what on Earth are you talking about? I'm wracking my brain trying to figure out where I've gone wrong because I normally agree with you, but, can you name ONE baseball reason in favor of this trade?

2013: Crawford > No Crawford
2012: Beckett > Another 5th starter option
2013: Beckett ~ FA SPs
2012: Gonzalez >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Loney
2013: Gonzalez >>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody

De La Rosa is a lottery ticket. The rest of what's coming back from LA is junk. You agree that the evaluation of the trade hinges on how much $$ Boston sends to LA. So how can you possibly say this could be a win for the Sox in baseball terms?
   142. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:10 PM (#4217303)
a Victorino-Ethier-Kemp-Gonzalez-Ethier-Ramirez-Ellis-[SS] lineup is a lot more palatable to Dodgers fans than the opening day Gordon-Ellis-Kemp-Ethier-Rivera-Loney-Uribe-Ellis lineup.....
   143. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:10 PM (#4217304)
So, Swisher will go the reverse Johnny Damon route this offseason?
   144. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:11 PM (#4217305)
How good is Allen Webster? He is also reportedly going in the deal.
   145. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:11 PM (#4217307)
De La Rosa is a lottery ticket. The rest of what's coming back from LA is junk. You agree that the evaluation of the trade hinges on how much $$ Boston sends to LA. So how can you possibly say this could be a win for the Sox in baseball terms?
The Red Sox will have a ####### of money to spend, and they just have to spend it at 75% efficiency to get a better deal and better projected wins.

Beckett and Crawford are horribly overpaid. The Sox will indeed have to do some work to find players to spend this money on, but I think it's a much, much better position to be in than having to pay Crawford and Beckett lots of money on into the future.
   146. karlmagnus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:12 PM (#4217308)
Basically the music stopped in 2008, when they foolishly traded Manny. Kept him, and they'd probably have won that year, then avoided the Lackey trade.

Good Sox 1967-2008 RIP
   147. Juan Uribe Marching and Chowder Society Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:13 PM (#4217309)
Webster has generally been the consensus #2 prospect for the dodgers behind Zach Lee, who is considered a 2-3 starter ceiling. So take that for what it's worth.
   148. andrewberg Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:14 PM (#4217310)
a Victorino-Ethier-Kemp-Gonzalez-Ethier-Ramirez-Ellis-[SS] lineup is a lot more palatable to Dodgers fans than the opening day Gordon-Ellis-Kemp-Ethier-Rivera-Loney-Uribe-Ellis lineup.....


Let's get ethier in there one more time for good measure.
   149. Greg K Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4217312)
Let's get ethier in there one more time for good measure.

I assume that second Ethier was supposed to be the second (or first) Ellis.

Speaking of vast improvements of the Dodgers lineup who saw AJ Ellis as one of the better hitting catchers in baseball?
   150. The Long Arm of Rudy Law Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4217313)
Let's get ethier in there one more time for good measure.


A Kemp-Ethier-Kemp-Ethier-Kemp-Ethier-Kemp-Ethier-Kemp lineup would have looked really good to go with the Kershaw-Kershaw-Kershaw-Kershaw-Blanton rotation.
   151. JE (Jason) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4217314)
Mike Rizzo's response to the trade: "Innings limit? We don't need no stinkin' innings limit!"
   152. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4217315)
Why do these stories have to break on a Friday night? We should be at 500 posts already.
   153. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:20 PM (#4217317)
Good Sox 1967-2008 RIP
Yeah, I remember your long posting history from 2003-2008 about how well run the Red Sox were, and how many games and playoff series you expected them to win.
   154. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4217318)
Webster has generally been the consensus #2 prospect for the dodgers behind Zach Lee, who is considered a 2-3 starter ceiling. So take that for what it's worth.

Meaningless. In a good system he'd be nobody. Webster was ranked #95 by BA pre-2012 and from the look of the component stats has failed to make any progress whatsoever in his second look at AA at age 22.

Unless De Jesus has outlandishly good defense (at two of the three positions left on the diamond that the Sox DON'T need somebody), he's garbage too.

We already know Loney and Sands are useless.

The Sox will indeed have to do some work to find players to spend this money on

Putting it lightly. If they back up the truck for Swisher or Choo or whoever, effectively repeating the exact same mistake they made with Crawford in the first place, my interest in this team is really going to suffer.

And I still disagree with you. 'Overpaid' is not a 'baseball reason'. After this trade, the team on the field is going to be much, much worse (CERTAINLY for 2012 and the subsequently foreseeable future) than it was before. Much worse.


EDIT:
Speaking of vast improvements of the Dodgers lineup who saw AJ Ellis as one of the better hitting catchers in baseball?

I don't even know anything about him, but his series of interviews with Kershaw called 'Between Two Palm Trees' is utterly hilarious, and I hate the Dodgers.


EDIT2:
Per Dock's reportage below, there is basically no agreement in place, is there? If they haven't worked out how much money is moving, this is far from done.
   155. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:22 PM (#4217319)
?@nickcafardo Money has to be sorted out in the Red Sox-Dodgers deal. Sox will assume some but how much is one of the things being worked on.
   156. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:26 PM (#4217322)
The Red Sox will have a ####### of money to spend, and they just have to spend it at 75% efficiency to get a better deal and better projected wins.

Beckett and Crawford are horribly overpaid. The Sox will indeed have to do some work to find players to spend this money on, but I think it's a much, much better position to be in than having to pay Crawford and Beckett lots of money on into the future.

We won't know what the break-even percentage is until we know how much dough they're including.

More fundamentally, since the terrible contracts were the work of essentially the same management team (minus Theo, to be sure, but I'm assuming Cherington and ownership had a part of the Crawford signing and the Beckett extension), why should we have any confidence that they will spend the saved money at 75% efficiency rather than overpay for worse players?
   157. phredbird Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:26 PM (#4217323)
glad to see baloney leaving, not so excited about the prospect of losing de la rosa. he throws hard.

i'm sticking with my nutbag prediction: dodgers in the WS!!!!
   158. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:26 PM (#4217324)
Err. It's not like the Sox won't be in the hunt for free agents the next couple years. Heck, they'll be more in the hunt given the gigantic amount of payroll flexibility. And the only player they're really going to be missing is A-Gon, who is excellent but not irreplaceable. Unless you think that Beckett is going to be awesome next year (which is possible, it is an odd numbered year) and that Crawford will be good, this isn't going to hurt them much in the short term.

I actually want this to happen just to see what happens in the aftermath. This is mindboggling.
   159. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:28 PM (#4217325)
why should we have any confidence that they will spend the saved money at 75% efficiency rather than overpay for worse players?


It'd be hard to spend the money worse.

How much the Dodgers get back is going to be the real key to the deal, and will be the reason it falls apart if anything.
   160. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:28 PM (#4217326)
They'd better finish this quick so they can hammer out the details of Ryan Howard-Jonathan Papelbon-Cliff Lee for Shawn Tolleson and Ronald Belisario.
   161. JE (Jason) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4217327)
Alternate Mike Rizzo reply to the trade: "Hey, maybe that guy pitching indy ball in Sugar Land would like to join our rotation? What's his cell number?"
   162. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4217328)
If this deal falls apart, do you think Boston beat writers experience the biggest collective orgasm in history before going to their offices to write their articles?
   163. The District Attorney Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4217329)
It would be funny if the Red Sox tried to send Beckett to LA anyway if the trade falls apart, but he said "No, I don't think so."
LA claimed him off waivers, right? So Boston could just decline to pull him back. Beckett wouldn't have a say in it.

i still have no idea where they find a first baseman in the foreseeable future.
Loney can stand there for a month. Then maybe Lavarnway. Or convert Nava. Or a guy. It's first base.
   164. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:32 PM (#4217330)
Per Dock's reportage below, there is basically no agreement in place, is there? If they haven't worked out how much money is moving, this is far from done.

The players are agreed on, but the latest info says the money is being worked out, and Beckett and Crawford still have to agree. That's how "done" it is so far.

I'm sharing what I think is relevant and new information. That's my understand of what has happened so far. I still think actually taking down the Gonzalez poster at Fenway is certainly indicative of SOMETHING.
   165. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:32 PM (#4217331)
More fundamentally, since the terrible contracts were the work of essentially the same management team (minus Theo, to be sure, but I'm assuming Cherington and ownership had a part of the Crawford signing and the Beckett extension), why should we have any confidence that they will spend the saved money at 75% efficiency rather than overpay for worse players?
Well, this is an argument against everything.

To contend in 2013-2014, prior to the trade, the Red Sox needed to spend their money very wisely. You presumably think they wouldn't, so the 2013-2014 Red Sox were ###### anyway. Now they only need to spend their money reasonably competently. I prefer this situation.
   166. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:33 PM (#4217332)
LA claimed him off waivers, right? So Boston could just decline to take him back. Beckett wouldn't have a say in it.


He has 10-5 rights, they still apply in waivers. But I doubt he'd say no. If they can't work out the money, just let them have Beckett.
   167. jmurph Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:33 PM (#4217333)
You know what might be the most satisfying part? Acknowledgment that giving two years to Punto was a mistake. Which is actually my only hesitation about this: the guys that gave two years to Nick ####### Punto are still in charge of spending money.
   168. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:35 PM (#4217335)
You know what might be the most satisfying part? Acknowledgment that giving two years to Punto was a mistake. Which is actually my only hesitation about this: the guys that gave two years to Nick ####### Punto are still in charge of spending money.

Cherington has not covered himself in glory so far.
   169. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:37 PM (#4217338)
@Sean_McAdam Told that seeds of deal were sewn before 7/31 deadline, then resurrected again this week, prompting Beckett and Gonzalez to go on waivers.
   170. Mayor Blomberg Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:37 PM (#4217339)
What's the prob with Josh? Point his car west in the parking lot, dangle a drumstick on a string in front of the window, and he's gone.
   171. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:37 PM (#4217340)
Crap, now that the A's don't suck again, I have this nagging worry Henry will try to get Billy Beane again to clean up this mess. That's it, I'm heading to dinner before I get any more paranoid.
   172. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:38 PM (#4217342)
Well, this is an argument against everything.

Also known as "the karlmagnus / Benji special".

"Oh great, we traded Scott Atchison for Mike Trout. Forgive me for not getting excited about another Cherington move. The first time he tweaks a hamstring the Red Sox trainers will make sure it turns into an amputation. And when we're ready to win again, he's going to be another ballooning contract albatross anyway."
   173. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:39 PM (#4217343)
Cherington has not covered himself in glory so far.


The hidden benefit here is the following:

We know Cherington couldn't do well and find good solutions on a tight budget, but he could point to being saddled with bad contracts. That excuse will now be gone. If the Sox stink in 2013, he's probably gone, with mid-2014 as the outside end if they still aren't playing well. So either we'll expedite his firing (because he stinks) or he'll spend the money more wisely and we'll be in better shape. Win-win!
   174. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:44 PM (#4217345)
[172] that's stupid. This deal is a clear step backwards vis a vis the 25 guys in the dugout. Making a move that is a clear win would not meet with resistance. They're trading a bunch of good baseball players for a bunch of less good baseball players. The deal is only a win if they save a lot of money - and I don't give one single #### about John Henry's personal fortune.

The Youk deal made clear that they are more than willing to trade good players for pennies on the dollar for financial/clubhouse reasons. Team chemistry is going to have to get pretty ####### amazing to make up for losing three players as good as Gonzalez/Beckett/Crawford - unless the money is used to sign players as good or better.

Why didn't they make the Dodgers take ############# Lackey, too?
   175. tjm1 Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:47 PM (#4217347)
If the Sox stink in 2013, he's probably gone, with mid-2014 as the outside end if they still aren't playing well.


But there's not really anyone to spend it on for 2013 - at least not at the position they're vacating. The one thing that might make sense would be to overpay Swisher to play first base but on a one year deal. Given him 1 year at $13-14 million. Get a decent player, but don't lock yourself into anything.
   176. Lassus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:47 PM (#4217348)
Mike Nickeas is available.
   177. Tom (and his broom) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:48 PM (#4217349)
Crap, now that the A's don't suck again, I have this nagging worry Henry will try to get Billy Beane again to clean up this mess. That's it, I'm heading to dinner before I get any more paranoid.


Can just see it...Beane: "Boss, I made the best trade yet, got a bunch of prospects from the Red Sox and I didn't give up any players, just sent him our GM".
   178. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:52 PM (#4217354)
losing three players as good Gonzalez/Beckett/Crawford


Yeah, that 2.8 WAR is gonna be really hard to replace.

eta: That's being churlish, but so is imagining that any of them other than Gonzalez are at all likely to be worth their contracts.
   179. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:52 PM (#4217355)
To contend in 2013-2014, prior to the trade, the Red Sox needed to spend their money very wisely. You presumably think they wouldn't, so the 2013-2014 Red Sox were ###### anyway. Now they only need to spend their money reasonably competently. I prefer this situation.

Perhaps unrealistically, I was hoping that bounce-backs by Gonzalez, Crawford and Beckett would give the 2013 and 2014 teams at least an outiside shot at contention, although I wasn't all that optimistic.

IIRC, this is not a particularly strong FA year. My concern is that the Sox will either give in to fan/media pressure and overpay for replacements who aren't as good as the guys they're giving up (even if they're overpaid by smaller amounts), or will pocket the savings and go into a full rebuild mode. The latter option might be for the best in the long run, but I'm not looking forward to the short run very much.
   180. McCoy Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:52 PM (#4217356)
People still think Carl Crawford is a good player?
   181. McCoy Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:53 PM (#4217357)
IIRC, this is not a particularly strong FA year

I think it is going to be a very long time until we see another strong FA year.
   182. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:55 PM (#4217358)
re [175] the FA options at first this offseason are horrific.

Here are the 2013 FAs at 1B per Cots. Who would you like to pay? As noted somewhere above, LaRoche has a mutual option for 2013 for $10m with a $1m buyout.
First Basemen
Travis Hafner *
Aubrey Huff *
Adam LaRoche *
Carlos Lee
James Loney
Ty Wigginton *


EDIT
imagining that any of them other than Gonzalez are at all likely to be worth their contracts.

Who cares? I want the Red Sox to have good baseball players, not good values. Payroll is limited but so are the options available. Unless you want to make the case that paying these three was going to hamstring the team to the extent that they couldn't add good baseball players to the roster - does this deal involve sending good baseball players to another team or doesn't it?

EDIT2:
Nobody's going to take my Valentine bet after this ########### of a trade, so why don't you put your money where your mouth is, scott? I'll bet a $20 bbref sponsorship that those three players accrue more 2013 WAR than their replacements in Boston.
   183. Al Kaline Trio Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:55 PM (#4217359)
Why would the Red Sox not sign Hamilton to play LF for them after the season? He'd hit .350 with 30-40 HR's in Fenway. I guess the training staff + Hamilton + lots of good beer/meth in Boston might make for a bad combo.

I'd take Hamilton + Grienke over a one armed Crawford and Beckett.

That or trade for Soriano (kidding).
   184. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:56 PM (#4217360)
The Red Sox will have a ####### of money to spend, and they just have to spend it at 75% efficiency to get a better deal and better projected wins.

The prospects could be something or nothing at this point, and with the money changing hands still uncertain, it's too soon to evaluate this deal. The Red Sox are left with some holes in a somewhat underwhelming free agent market. The deal does pretty much guarantee that Boston will reap the financial benefits of getting below the luxury tax threshold, and the owners could still put the money in their own pockets. It will be interesting to see how new financial flexibility is used, but it could take a couple of seasons, or more, to rebuild.
   185. Pleasant Nate (Upgraded from 'Nate') Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:59 PM (#4217362)
Of course, as we saw with A-Gone, FA is not the only way.

Choo is already basically being announced to be shopped. It'd be surprising if Upton isn't at least shopped. I'm sure there will be more, but sometimes those are difficult to see this time of year. If it's FA or bust, 2013 will be rough, but it likely won't be FA or bust.
   186. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:00 PM (#4217364)
People still think Carl Crawford is a good player?

His hitting this year wasn't terrible for a guy with a bum elbow who just had TJ surgery. I think he could be good again -- massively overpaid, but good.
   187. JE (Jason) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:01 PM (#4217365)
Here are the 2013 FAs at 1B per Cots. Who would you like to pay?

David Ortiz.
   188. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:02 PM (#4217366)
@Ken_Rosenthal #Dodgers believed to be on Crawford’s no-trade list. He would need to approve the deal. Not expected to be a problem.
   189. zenbitz Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:02 PM (#4217367)
I the Dodgers new owners took "Red Sox West" literally.

Be interesting to see how the Giants Brass deals with the 2013-14 versions of Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran -- two guys they needed but could "not afford".
   190. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:04 PM (#4217368)
I wouldn't be shocked if they do. A-Gon should be better, and Crawford missed all but 30 odd games. Beckett couldn't GET worse. Given what's on the market, they're all very likely to exceed their performance this year.
   191. SteveF Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:04 PM (#4217369)
They could move Middlebrooks to first and let Bogaerts play third around mid-year. Bogaerts is pretty close to being a major league player.
   192. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:05 PM (#4217370)
David Ortiz

This is actually a great idea. Still need another hitter, though. Unless it's Lavarnway. Hm. Still worse than Gonzalez. And much riskier.

I wouldn't be shocked if they do.

Okay... it would be churlish for me to tell you to #### off, then, but if you agree that these three are likely to be better on the baseball diamond than whoever Cherington replaces them with, I don't understand what your argument was in the first place.
   193. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:08 PM (#4217372)
Bogaerts is pretty close to being a major league player.

Huh? He's 19 and has played 13 games at AA. The prospect road is littered with the carcasses of guys who looked equally good at this stage and flamed out. I like Bogaerts, too, but let's not get carried away.
   194. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:09 PM (#4217373)
@jaysonst A big reason #Dodgers could take on these contracts is, they only have 2 players (Kemp, Ethier) signed beyond 2014. But that'll change!
   195. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:10 PM (#4217374)
but if you agree that these three are likely to be better on the baseball diamond than whoever Cherington replaces them with, I don't understand what your argument was in the first place.


Because there's 6 other starting spots on the diamond. And 19 other spots on the roster. I think it's entirely possible that those three players out produce whatever three players take their individual roles, but that doesn't mean jack all considering that you can also improve elsewhere given the additional payroll flexibility.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that Crawford is good.
   196. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:18 PM (#4217377)
that doesn't mean jack all considering that you can also improve elsewhere given the additional payroll flexibility.

Theoretically true. In context, less so. Though I'd love to see it.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that Crawford is good.

We don't have to have this out here - this topic has been done to death repeatedly. I'll settle for saying that there is plenty of evidence that he might well be.

And, again, you think he's so awful and the Sox have so much money to distribute intelligently - it shouldn't be hard to replace a worthless ballplayer - my offer remains on the table. Unless you have something constructive to say, I'll leave it at that.
   197. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4217378)
No way. This will fall apart, probably because Punto doesn't want to go or something.

Also, if this thing does happen, I am willing to gamble that A-Gon gets MVP votes next year.
   198. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4217379)
He'll get MVP votes THIS year.
   199. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4217380)
Wait, if I take the deal now but the trade falls apart, does this mean we automatically push? Also, making a deal where I don't have any clue what my hand would be without any out would be plum foolish. I think you're overestimating the quality of your rhetorical riposte.
   200. McCoy Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4217381)
I can't really see how this falls apart. At the end of the day they can just simply let these guys go. Perhaps it burns a few bridges between teams but I'm guessing a quarter of a billion dollars in savings helps put out those fires.

Do the Red Sox really pull back Beckett because the Dodgers want the Red Sox to give them 20 million dollars instead of 10 million?
Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
aleskel
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNY Times: In Rare Film, White Sox Before They Were Black Sox
(5 - 1:53pm, Oct 31)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogSending Gordon | Joe Blogs
(2 - 1:52pm, Oct 31)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogSend Alex Gordon! | FiveThirtyEight
(100 - 1:51pm, Oct 31)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogTalking Ball with Jeffrey Radice – The Hardball Times
(2 - 1:47pm, Oct 31)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogNewest Hall of Fame Candidates Announced
(67 - 1:42pm, Oct 31)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4857 - 1:41pm, Oct 31)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(31 - 1:41pm, Oct 31)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(646 - 1:37pm, Oct 31)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(128 - 1:36pm, Oct 31)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogDeadline: World Series Ratings: Game 7 Scores Home Run For Fox
(23 - 1:34pm, Oct 31)
Last: Traderdave

NewsblogStatcast: Gordon stops 90 feet from tying Game 7
(3 - 1:15pm, Oct 31)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogAngell: The Best
(27 - 1:10pm, Oct 31)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-31-2014
(18 - 1:10pm, Oct 31)
Last: Der-K and the statistical werewolves.

NewsblogThe Players' Tribune: Jeter: The Clean Up
(6 - 12:47pm, Oct 31)
Last: donlock

NewsblogBoston.com: Youk Retires
(12 - 12:27pm, Oct 31)
Last: Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat

Page rendered in 0.4902 seconds
52 querie(s) executed