Red Sox Close To Trading Mike Lowell To Rangers
by Randy Booth on Dec 10, 2009 12:25 AM EST
in News
186 comments
[UPDATE, 3:03 a.m.] It's my bedtime. Mr. Lowell can wait until the morning. - Randy
[UPDATE, 3:00 a.m.] SI's Jon Heyman tweets that both sides are still mulling the deal.
[UPDATE, 1:23 a.m.] Ken Rosenthal tweets the following:
Lowell hip, thumb issues could derail trade to Texas. "This thing could still blow up," one source said.
[UPDATE, 12:57 a.m.] The ProJo has more, including the fact the Sox will probably eat at least half of Lowell's contract:
UPDATE: FoxSports Ken Rosenthal is reporting that the framework on a deal is done -- though those involved say it is not a done deal yet. As a caveat, that's not clear whether it's 'not done' because it's pending a physical, or not done because there are still issues to be worked out.
Also, According to those close to him, Lowell was not thrilled that it has come to this -- "he signed a three-year deal to play in Boston," but does not appear to want to stand in the way of any trade.
The Herald says the deal is done after the team's "haggled" over money.
-----
The Red Sox are close to trading third baseman Mike Lowell to the Texas Rangers in return for catching prospect Max Ramirez, according to FoxSports' Ken Rosenthal:
Prelim agreement on Lowell to Tex for Max Ramirez. Red Sox owners must approve, teams must be satisfied with medicals. Red Sox eating ne ...
Make that, Red Sox eating nearly all of 12 salary.
If this is really that close, this is huge news. The Mike Lowell trade rumors just started brewing up today, but I don't think anyone expected a deal to be in place this quickly. If this trade goes down, expect the Red Sox to go hard after Adrian Beltre. Or, perhaps, explore a trade to bring in a first baseman or a third baseman.
We'll have more on the deal as we hear the details.
0 recs |
186 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I would not be suprised to see a Beltre deal
JD’s like, "you want some fucking pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, bitches!"- RCCook
Ditto
I think that’ll be the next move we hear.
SB Nation's Boston Red Sox community:
OverTheMonster.com
Follow Randy on Twitter: @RCBooth
by Randy Booth on Dec 10, 2009 12:32 AM EST up reply actions
As long as it's no longer than 3 years...
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 12:40 AM EST up reply actions
Beltre actually seems a particularly good bet to age well
Young players skills kind of guy and a good athlete.
Or
Ramirez starting C, Vic to 1B, and Youk to 3B. And although I still find it unlikely this is one hurdle out of the way for a potential AGonz or Miggy trade.
I will miss Mikey
He was a great clubhouse guy and a leader on this team who was always willing to do whats best for the team, trying to play hurt etc. I for one will dearly miss him. I wish him all the best with the Rangers if the trade indeed happens.
by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 10, 2009 12:43 AM EST reply actions
+2
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 10, 2009 9:29 AM EST up reply actions
Please do not sign Beltre
This team is not the sort of group that needs to go all-defense or all-offense. There’s a healthy middle ground to be found which doesn’t involve guys with OBPs scraping .300 in the lineup.
USG
RE:
Beltre’s OBP might not be great, but I think he would translate well to Fenway. More doubles, more home runs. Odds are his average would see a boost, which would then push that OBP up. I could see him similar to what Jacoby Ellsbury was doing for the first half of last season. Plus-40 or so on the OBP/AVG differential? That’s Mike Lowell territory, my friend. So what are we really losing?
SB Nation's Boston Red Sox community:
OverTheMonster.com
Follow Randy on Twitter: @RCBooth
A chance to put a legitimate all-star at 1st.
I’m not convinced Cabrera and Gonzalez are ungettable, to say nothing of how long we might have to sign Beltre for.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 1:08 AM EST up reply actions
RE:
I just think Theo wants to hold on to the prospects, at least for now. Gonzo will cost an arm and a leg. Cabrera has too many question marks. I like this move to see how the Sox compete.
Plus, I don’t like Youk at third. I don’t think he could be a full-time 3B.
But of course, it all comes down to the cha-chinga… or money.
SB Nation's Boston Red Sox community:
OverTheMonster.com
Follow Randy on Twitter: @RCBooth
Youk was never gonna light the world on fire at 3rd
But why don’t you think he could stick there? He came up through the organization as a 3B.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 1:19 AM EST up reply actions
He's getting old.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Wow...
As the main Mike Lowell hater since Day 1, this is a really weird feeling. Very happy that he’s no longer on the club, but if we sign Beltre, it’s far worse than being stuck with Lowell. Beltre sucks, Lowell sucked, let’s move onto some solutions for once.
What's wrong with Beltre?
SB Nation's Boston Red Sox community:
OverTheMonster.com
Follow Randy on Twitter: @RCBooth
.265/.304/.379/.683
and will require a multi-year deal. If we get him for one year at 6-8m I’d jump at it, but you cannot commit to multiple seasons or anything close to Lowell’s ridiculous contract terms.
People seem to think the AL West had really good pitching last season, and it didn’t. Seattle was by far the best, while the other 3 teams on the whole weren’t that good. The Angels were downright tragic for at least half of the season.
Beltre is still not worse than Lowell
I believe his offense will improve moving from Safeco to Fenway, and he provides better road offense. Theo himself said he wanted to improve defense and road hitting after we were knocking out of the playoffs. Signing Beltre does that.
Fangraphs did a very brief examination of him about two months ago:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/adrian-beltres-bat-away-from-safeco
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 1:28 AM EST up reply actions
I don't see him getting more than Figgins, personally
Even if his agent is Boras
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 1:29 AM EST up reply actions
We simply can't keep
getting caught up in these 3-4 year deals for mediocre players. Signing the Lowells, Lugos, Scutaros of the world are what kill us, since they give us average or below average production for above average prices. If you’re going to sign a mediocrity, find a 37-38 year old one for a single year, no more multi-year contracts on decent-at-best players.
Beltre at 2 years, tops. Eventually, this club needs to start building a winner rather than assembling some parts around our core. A $140m payroll club playing the prospect game is stupid at best and insulting to the fanbase at worst.
Well, I'm not insulted, personally
Assuming Adrian Gonzalez and Miguel Cabrera are off-limits at this point (and there haven’t been any indications that they aren’t) of course.
I also don’t view Beltre as a mediocre player. He should provide average offense at least with well above average defense. To me, that doesn’t equate to “average to below average production” unless you’re simply going by offensive numbers. WAR has Beltre as better than Lowell the past few years.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 1:36 AM EST up reply actions
You don't need to convince me
that Beltre is better than Lowell. I would’ve rather had a cardboard cutout of Brooks Robinson playing third these last 2 seasons than Lowell. But if we get caught up in a 3-4 year contract for Beltre akin to the stupid SS signings we always toss out, then we are yet again not solving the problems this club has.
if 2010 is a throwaway year, or at least a year where we’re not actively trying to win (like ‘08 and ’09 were, I guess), then screwing our payroll for 2011-2013 now is insane. At least if it’s not for an elite player.
only because the yankees are also good , we are not trying to win?
As i’m concerned our 95 Win team just got better. So stop all that nonsense about 2010 will be a lost year.
by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 10, 2009 1:49 AM EST up reply actions
This whole "throwaway year" thing is absurd.
The Sox won 95 games last year. That is a lot. I don’t know why we would be significantly worse than that next year. Theo will be actively trying to win this year. But is he going to mortage our future for right now? no.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
+1
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 10, 2009 9:31 AM EST up reply actions
Playing the prospect game is...bad?
Huh?
Have you looked at the talent we’ve gotten from said prospect game?
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 1:36 AM EST up reply actions
We're the freaking Boston Red Sox
We can spend more than virtually everyone, but Theo acts like we’re the Royals hoping that our prospects come through in order to succeed. I’m guessing the $140m payroll would help us succeed, if we actually tried using it to win. We’ve already had Lars and Bowden explode into nothingness in ‘09, because they’re prospects.
Trade your prospects for sure-things, and don’t touch them for question marks. But we hoard while other teams get the elite players.
Elite players
Like Youkilis, Pedroia, and Lester?
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions
Forgot Papelbon
To say nothing of Bard, Buchholz, and Ellsbury, each of whom still has tons of potential.
Not that Lars is a dead commodity because of one bad year.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 1:44 AM EST up reply actions
Players like Santana
Who we could’ve had for Ells. I’m not saying trade every prospect, or even want to do that in plans A-F, but eventually if the decision is to sign a crappy player like Lowell or Scutaro, perhaps you should consider getting a difference maker somewhere.
Ellsbury is a nothing, and he should’ve been trade fodder after his 120th percentile performance in ’07, especially when we had Crisp just sitting around. But the nature of prospects is that some pan out and some flame out, and as the Red Sox we do not need to live or die based on all of them panning out.
What I don’t understand is, if we actually cared about prospects, why did we flush a 29th pick down the drain for a career backup shortstop?
Ells led the Majors in steals
not to mention some of the amazing defense he’s brought us… Yeah, he’s a little rough around the edges still but he’s working to improve that. He’ll get better. To trade him would be a bad mistake.
Ells is a mediocre defender until he learns how to read off the bat.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 1:50 AM EST up reply actions
True
I believe that will come now. He’s robbed a few homers with some nice plays this season, and that’s fun to watch :-)
Sorry Man
Ellsbury is pretty universally seen as one of the worst fielders in baseball. If perception matched reality for Ells he’d have tremendous value, but right now he’s a no power defensive liability
He's only entering his third year
He’s still a valuable asset. To say he’s a nothing is a gross mistake.
Worst defenders at his given position.
He’s got all the tools but the reads. If he could just make the reads.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 1:53 AM EST up reply actions
You lost me at "Ellsbury is a nothing"
Seriously, I may be a bit more down on him than others, but “a nothing”? No, not buying it. I’m sorry we’re not emptying the farm for Roy Halladay and Adrian Gonzalez, but a mixture of home-grown players and FA’s is a good combination to have.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 1:51 AM EST up reply actions
Not when
the FAs never provide us any value. We are luckiest with Drew producing almost exactly what he’s being paid. For ells, an atrocious fielder with a 96 OPS+ means nothing at all to me, especially compared to that which we could have received for him at the time.
First off, check your facts.
It wasn’t just for Ellsbury. Sure we could’ve made the trade for Ellsbury, Masterson, Lowrie, and a “fourth man” that was always tossed around. But you forget that they were also after a deal where you throw in Lester instead of Ellsbury. Hindsight is 20/20 in that you can say “We should’ve traded Ellsbury!”, but you can’t say that without saying “Thank God we played the prospect game and kept Jon Lester!”
As for Scutaro, if we sign another Type-A it all makes sense.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 1:52 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Dude
Smith called Theo that morning and asked for a final offer, and Theo bailed. I do know my facts on this, not the initial Santana deal, the deal that was possible that final day. Considering the Twins got a guy flipped for the coming-off-a-terrible-season JJ Hardy and a couple of ball buckets, Ellsbury is a sure-thing.
Yeah, and what was the final offer?
“I’ll give you Ellsbury”
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 1:55 AM EST up reply actions
Link?
I have never heard that we could have gotten Santana for Ellsbury. We offered Ells plus Lester or Buch and they demanded both Lester and Buch. That is my understanding. But if you have information that says something else, please give us a source.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Yup.
“The Prospect game” is the only reason we were competitive this year. This team needs to produce good major league players so that we can sign the elite talent.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Re: Santana
He would have cost (depending on the rumor) some of these players: Lester, Buchholz, Ellsbury, Lowrie.. The Mets signed him to a stupid 6-year/$137.5 million contract. The last three years he has been a mid- to upper-3s FIP pitcher. Since coming to the NL, his K-rates have dropped considerably. That’s strange because now he is facing a pitcher instead of a DH. By WAR, he has been worth 4.6 (2007), 4.8 (2008), and 2.8 (2009). Santana is clearly no longer the pitcher he was 2004-2006. The Mets will be paying him an average of $24.6 million from 2010 to 2013. He isn’t worth the money.
In big deals—either trades or FA signings—teams often pay a premium for past performance. I’m very glad the Sox didn’t make the Santana trade. Lester is already a better pitcher. Buchholz may end up being as good or better going forward. Ellsbury is valuable. All three are cost-controlled, and will be more productive for the Sox from 2010 to 2013 than the very expensive Sananta would have been.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 10, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, exactly, elite players like-....oh, I see what you did there
Shame on you, Ben Buchanan
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 1:47 AM EST up reply actions
Home-grown prospects
Are what makes being a Sox fan fun. Honestly, I don’t want to be the Boston Yankees. I love watching guys come up through the system – Just look at the names USG mentioned, plus we have many more in our farm waiting for their chance.
One thing this team needs is a pitcher to fill Masterson’s role as a long reliever… I think that will make a bigger difference than going after all the huge FA’s out there. Just one pitcher capable of giving long relief.
Did the '04 ring
mean any less because virtually none of the players were homegrown? I just want the best product on the field, and the Scutaros, Lowells, Lugos and Renterias are not it. Beltre for 2 years tops, otherwise don’t bother. Either play the kids, or go for an elite, don’t screw around in the middle waiting for the perfect storm of Kelly, Westmoreland, Reddick, Kalish, Bowden, Anderson and now Ramirez to figure it out at the same time.
That ring will always mean a lot
Mostly because I could practically hear the celebration here in Southern New Hampshire… I just like seeing the home grown guys. I think seeing Lester on the mound of Game 4 of the ’07 series and win was one of the best memories I have.
In 2010
Most likely will feature only 1 home grown outfielder, 2 home grown infielders, no home grown catchers (screw ’Tek) and 2 home grown starters (Lester, Buchholz). Who knows how many home grown players in the bullpen. This is about what we had last year and we won 95 games.
I’m sorry Theo’s process rubs you the wrong way, I’m perfectly fine with it.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 1:56 AM EST up reply actions
But what would've happened
If instead of spending $10m on reclamation projects we actually signed a good player who could spell our broken-down DH and give Youk and Lowell some time off with Dunn? Or if we did anything at all for ’08, when we were a single away from a world series berth?
Those were both winnable seasons, and we got nothing in the offseason.
Not bothered to shoot at all?
We were in the postseason both times. That’s what shooting is.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:01 AM EST up reply actions
And we faced other teams with holes in their units too.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:03 AM EST up reply actions
Well, at least you can keep a sense of humor in the middle of a debate
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:04 AM EST up reply actions
I like the question mark
SB Nation's Boston Red Sox community:
OverTheMonster.com
Follow Randy on Twitter: @RCBooth
Odds are, you have holes in any position
in any given season. There is no “perfect team.” You learn to work with what you’ve got and if you strategize better, you win.
Because of injuries
And the Rays split 20 at bats between Cliff Floyd and Gabe Gross. The only team that’s perfect spends 60 more million—conveniently enough to spend 20 million on each of those positions you mentioned.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:07 AM EST up reply actions
OK, how about this
Do you really think it’s worth giving Beltre a 3 or 4 year contract when, at best, he’ll provide average production?
No, I don't.
I don’t like signing Beltre too much. I said so earlier.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:08 AM EST up reply actions
But those
are the moves we make, and the ones I cannot stand. We cannot keep playing crappy overpriced FAs like we’ve trotted out at 3b and SS. It would be no different from the Lowell or Lugo or Scutaro deals. I would rather pay the price in prospects to get a fantastic player than pay the price in dollars for crap.
No they aren't.
We sign guys off career years . Coco Crisp? .350 wOBA in Cleveland while playing top-tier defense. A great get. But he flaired out offensively. I don’t have to tell you what Lowell did for the team in 2007. Lugo…well, Theo’s infatuation with him is well documented and odd. But Scutaro is when we avoided doing that. We gave him 5 million dollars for 2 years to be an average player. We didn’t overpay. If he keeps it up from last year, we got a bargain. If not, not. But it’s not like there was any other option out there.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:13 AM EST up reply actions
If he keeps it up from '09
I’ll eat my hat. I simply cannot believe that the $15.5m we’re giving Scutaro for a .720 OPS is worth any more than finding some schmo off the street for a .670/.680, and then spending that money on Mauer or something. Or another Latin American training camp, bloody anything.
We got him
to give us some stability at SS. I’d rather have him there giving us average defense than the cluster f—- we’ve had there in ’09.
We're giving Scutaro $10 million
12.5 guaranteed when you toss in the buyout and signing bonus.
And when you consider the shortstop position, yeah, it is worth it.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:20 AM EST up reply actions
Crisp has never been the same hitting
since he broke his knuckle sliding into a base in 2006 The trade was fine, and Crisp’s defense was great. He should had won the gold glove in 2007..
However his batting stats just were never the same after his knuckle fracture.
so your argument is
we
a) shouldn’t value prospects, should trade them
b) shouldn’t pay free agents
so you think every acquisition we should trade for when their cheap. That makes sense. Because our farm is endless.
If we trade up the most valuable pieces of our farm, then in 2 years, when his contract is up, we’re either going to need to pay him as much as he is worth, have someone come up through the farm, or trade for someone else. Now since our farm needs time to recover from the giant hit Gonzalez would cost it, we aren’t going to have that many people coming up through the farm either to strengthen the team or to trade for someone else. So end result is we have a weak farm, are still going to end up paying full price for a 1B in a couple of years, and will need to sign people to other positions as FA because we’re trading them all away. We have to think about the future, not just the next year.
Again
By “production” what exactly do you mean? Because if you mean as an overall player I think “average at best” is wrong, personally. And 4 years is too much. He won’t get what Figgins got, no way no how.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:09 AM EST up reply actions
The whole package
offense and defense. If Beltre put up a sub-700 in an age-30 season, age-34 scares the hell out of me, regardless of the glove.
I just don't think he is a sub-700 player now
Not yet, anyway. So this is just where we’re going to always fundamentally disagree.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:12 AM EST up reply actions
No
Which is a contract that hasn’t been brought up by anyone anywhere.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:14 AM EST up reply actions
Hey...
did anyone think Lugo was a 4/36? Or Renteria to.. 4/42 was it? Or whatever idiocy Gil Meche or Carlos Silva signed? FA money is ridiculous.
Unless he goes the Abreu or Dunn route, I can’t see him looking for anything less than 3/24, even off an off year.
Hey now
Meche isn’t that bad.
And I would sign Beltre for 3/24. Have a feeling Theo would too. Getting $8million in total value over 3 years from a guy like Beltre isn’t hard to do.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:19 AM EST up reply actions
Depends...
on whether you abide by the fangraphs valuation, I guess? But is it worth losing a spot where we may be able to dramatically improve? Are we ever going to get another all star calibre player if he doesn’t magically spring from the farm system? Someone to carry the club?
I just don't see that opportunity in the current market
Now this whole “Adrian will be with the Pads next year” thing is just a smokescreen and we’ll trade for him next week, but at this point I’m going to assume he’s not available. Cabrera’s in a similar situation. Are the Tigers hurting for money this year AND the following years, or did getting rid of Granderson and Jackson accomplish their payroll goals?
Most likely, we’d have to wait until next year when guys like Felix and Adrian and Josh Johnson are closer to FA and their teams are more willing to trade him. Are you willing to sign a single year “Placeholder” until that can happen? Because it doesn’t seem like you are.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:28 AM EST up reply actions
Which is why we have to develop prospects. We cannot afford $15M players at every position like the MFY.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
We're the Red Sox!
No, we cannot, but we seem to be under the delusion that we’re smaller than we are. I would so much rather spend $20m a year on a great player to carry the club than $12m on a player like Lowell who falls apart and is below average.
If there isn’t a prospect available, it may be worth shelling out. Just don’t shell out for crap.
I agree with that.
We have spent the money. Theo’s given out bad contracts to SS’s, but rarely was someone better available. The problem is that whenever a truly elite talent is available, the MFY will outbid us.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Again, predict Lowell's demise.
Everyone wants to talk like they see the future, but Lowell just came off a season where he was a fantastic 3B and hit 5th in our lineup with no issues. The age was why we signed him for 3 and not 4 years—you’ll recall that was the line we drew in the sand.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:34 AM EST up reply actions
I went nuts on every part
of the lowell deal, from fielding (fielding bible had him as the worst 3b in the game) to OBP to the 2nd half collapse to his ’07 aberration and everything in between. Nobody opposed the Lowell deal more than I, and miraculously, everything I said came true.
like his 2007 season?
and 120 rbis?!?!
Lowell was a top tier 3rd baseman, and his swing was good in Fenway. The Hip Injury he and A-Rod have are potential career ending injury.
I have nothing but respect for Lowell, Hey the guy is bilingual. Which is one reason he was a clubhouse leader.
I don't get your point.
You are against developing prospects, thereby you are in favor of signing free agents. Do you realize that free agents tend to always cost 100 times more than the same player who is developed from your own system? The players we have depended on came from our system, while the “dead-weight” guys are all free agents. So you think we should sign free agents, but only the ones that are guaranteed to succeed? Sorry to burst your bubble, but those guys do not exist.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Where did I say
I wanted to sign free agents? I want a balanced approach, where we sign free agents that can make a difference because they are really good at something (like Dunn at hitting balls into the stratosphere) as long as it’s not for crazy deals. We should develop the farm, especially by not crapping away 1st round picks on backup SS’s, but we need to stop finding placeholders for players who possibly may never develop.
There are times when players are worth trading prospects, like we saw with Martinez. But far too often we seem to sit on the sidelines instead of pulling the trigger.
I'm not sure what you are advocating.
You are arguing against signing free agents and against developing a farm system.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Also
Where the hell would we have played Dunn last season? At that point we had no idea Lowell and Ortiz would play that badly.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:58 AM EST up reply actions
I said above
That Dunn would’ve split time between DH and 1B, to give a broken down Lowell and Ortiz time off, and some home ABs in LF where the monster would mask Dunn’s atrocious fielding. Ortiz was coming off of surgery, and Lowell has been broken down since we extended him (and he falls apart in the 2nd half annually).
For $8-9m for 2 years, he was the steal of the ’08 offseason.
He wasn't cheap
2 years/$20 million is a lot to pay for a 1.2 WAR player. Dunn’s only value is as a DH, a position he has no interest in playing.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Dec 10, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
And yet made 2 major moves DURING the past two seasons
Theo apparently prefers to work at the trade deadline. Big whoop.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:01 AM EST up reply actions
I don't know
What would have happened if A-Rod’s injury kept him out for longer? Or if Burnett’s oft-mentioned little injuries had popped up again during the season? Or if Jeter didn’t have a mini-resurgence? Where would the Yankees have ended up?
Are we REALLY going to play the “What if?” game about baseball?
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:00 AM EST up reply actions
At least
The Yankees try to win. They may steal 1.5bn from NY taxpayers in a BS illegal deal, but at least they go for it.
And the Red Sox stumbled upon all these 95 win seasons by accident?
Or maybe it’s a formula which consistently gives us a shot and avoids having us end up like the Mets and Cubs.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:02 AM EST up reply actions
Because we didn't win it all?
I don’t know, I have trouble seeing the argument that making minor moves and expecting more improvement from your rookies is somehow a huge failure after being only 1 win away from the World Series.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:06 AM EST up reply actions
You, sir, are absolutely full of it.
The 2009 team played terribly in the playoffs. But they certainly had the talent to win, and that is all we can ask.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
The Sox aren't looking to keep them all.
But it makes sense not to empty the system at a moment’s notice. You don’t look for a perfect storm of all of them, but you also don’t dump Westmoreland because you realize he’s got a good shot at being a 30/30 guy with top-tier defense in center.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 1:56 AM EST up reply actions
My issue
is that we keep getting placeholders for a future that never comes. Right now we were quite literally betting the farm that Iglesias will be a stud by 2012 with the Scutaro deal. We signed Lowell as a bridge to Anderson, and traded for Coco as a bridge from Damon to Ellsbury. Sometimes it works out, and other times it does not. In the meantime, we are losing valuable chances at creating a WS contender. ’08 and ’09 were flushed down the drain.
No they were not. We were in the postseason. As you said, 1 game away from the WS in 2008.
But what the hell was your magic wand move? What are you proposing we should’ve done? Should we have traded the system for a CF instead of Crisp? Cool, now where’s Lester last year? What do we do with THAT hole?
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:04 AM EST up reply actions
No, like I said
We already would’ve traded anything we had for Santana, since we can at least agree the price plummeted from the original asking. It never would’ve taken both Ells and Lester, it would’ve at most been Ells, Kalish, Lowrie and Masterson. And of that I would’ve been fine.
So now we have Santana at massive money/year.
And the CF we got is just about to hit FA. Now what?
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:08 AM EST up reply actions
Well, Granderson was available...
But constantly trading your farm system for elite player who are leaving soon or are going to cost you a lot is a losing game.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:11 AM EST up reply actions
That's the thing
I’m not advocating a Halladay deal, paying someone until the late 30s. Santana was still plenty young, and Granderson is extremely young. When you have a chance to get a player like that, you do everything you can, especially when the price falls.
It always depends on the price
Granderson was had for less than expected, but only in the end and from pressuring by teams that were already heavily involved in the 3-way trade discussion. It’s been reported that when Boston had contacted Detroit they were still looking for a huge haul and asked for Buchholz or Ellsbury.
Santana…whatever, rumors and reports have sprung up everywhere about what the “real” asking package was, but unless you were on the phone we have no idea what the actual final asking price for him was from the Sox’s end.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:18 AM EST up reply actions
Buchholz AND Ellsbury was what I'd heard.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:18 AM EST up reply actions
They wanted Buch and Lester and Ells.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
that was the day 1 asking price
When they were also asking for Reyes and Gomez to start a deal from the Mets. They ended up getting nothing.
that would be an ok deal for
Jackson, Cabrera and Granderson. And a few more prospects coming our way.
What are you talking about?
Jackson? Cabrera?
It would be us giving Detroit Ells and Buchholz for Granderson.
No thanks.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:40 AM EST up reply actions
Right, but
I’m trying to envision any situation where Buchholz, Lester AND Ellsbury would happen, as BTLove suggested. Does any team in baseball have the young players to make that ever work out in our favor, let alone for Granderson?
It'd be hard with Lester thrown in there.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:46 AM EST up reply actions
No Uggla.
We don’t like Uggla.
Speaking of the Marlins, is Nolasco at all available? See if the Marlins would ignore his FIP when confronted with the ugly ERA.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:51 AM EST up reply actions
If that Smoak and Feliz for Johnson rumor was true
Not sure they’d be willing to give him up. Looks like they’re in full contending mode. Do they have anyone good that would replace him in the rotation? Don’t think Andrew Miller is ready for that yet
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:57 AM EST up reply actions
Disagree
When you have a chance to get a player like Hanley Ramirez you do everything you can.
Or a Chase Utley.
Only the top, top tier talent.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:18 AM EST up reply actions
Granderson is almost a platoon only player
by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 10, 2009 2:19 AM EST up reply actions
Does it matter?
Santana + Crisp give us an infinitely better chance at the ‘08 ring, and then we either re-up Crisp (he isn’t going to get much, of that I figure we can agree) or shop around. Right now we have a 43 year old coming off of back surgery as our #5, and that can’t make everyone too happy (and, mind, I adore Timmy).
Santana + Ellsbury - Lester does not.
Again, you’re using hindsight. We don’t know they would’ve gone with Ells over Lester. Lester is, right now, a BETTER PLAYER than Santana.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:17 AM EST up reply actions
But, we knew then
what Ellsbury would be: a BA only no power speed guy. He’ll never be a star-level player. We should’ve looked to trade him for whatever we could’ve received back then, coming off of ’07 and the WS.
Since when is power required for all-star consideration?
After 2007 we were thinking Ichiro.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:27 AM EST up reply actions
Ells hit .350 in 2007 and looked like every bit one of the best defenders in the league.
Again, context. This is right after 2007 where he pulled our asses out of the Coco Crisp fire in the postseason.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:29 AM EST up reply actions
I think they did a little.
But I also think that had they offered us Santana for Ellsbury, Masterson, and Lowrie and Ells had never played yet, they would have pulled the trigger in a second.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:32 AM EST up reply actions
I have never heard it suggested before that we could have had Santana for Ellsbury. Source please?
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
from MLBTR 1.29.08
“Boston’s top offer was better as well. The Twins could’ve filled center field, shortstop, and closer needs immediately with Jacoby Ellsbury, Jed Lowrie, and Justin Masterson.”
a week earlier from C. Walters:
“The Twins say they’re not panicking while holding out for the best deal for Johan Santana. But word within baseball circles is that offers by the New York Yankees (no more Phil Hughes) and Boston Red Sox are diminishing by the week.”
Olney reported
The Twins asked for Wang and Kennedy right before Santana was traded.
“The Red Sox wouldn’t part with Jon Lester or Jacoby Ellsbury. To me this makes the Yankees and Red Sox look really fickle. They were willing to offer up these huge packages a few months ago but now both have done a 180? I know the free agent market has shrunk but it’s still crazy that their stances changed so dramatically.”
Anyway, I gotta get some sleep, you gentlemen kept me up way too late.
So they're 1/2
They knew Lester wasn’t worth it. They swung and missed on Ellsbury + Masterson + Lowrie not being worth it (though, again, some of that still remains to be seen given that Santana was worth so much less than his contract this year. He’s one of those guys getting older that giving a long contract to is a bit worrisome. He’s already missing games to injuries.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:45 AM EST up reply actions
I think what happened,
was that we made a final offer and they turned it down. The offer did include Ellsbury. After that final offer, we were done negotiating.
The problem you have is not that Theo was unwilling to part with Ells, but that he should have kept the negotiations going longer than he was willing.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Indeed
The team DID need to get SOMETHING done the way those talks dragged on. Ultimately we signed Bartolo f’ing Colon because we waited so long unsure what was gonna happen with that rotation spot. Lucky for us Lester stepped up and played the ace.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:48 AM EST up reply actions
A deal had to be done
Santana was threatening to just veto every single trade offer after a certain point. If that was Theo’s final offer, that was his final offer.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:50 AM EST up reply actions
Yup.
And Minnesota got fucked. Now teams know that Theo will stick to what he says on the outset and will not be strung along. Hopefully this will help in the future, and maybe has already helped.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
And Ellsbury as a player hasn't stopped growing and learning yet
Also, I hate that this argument has forced me to defend Ellsbury
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 2:53 AM EST up reply actions
I don't know what you are smoking...
If the Sox actually went through with a deal with Santana, the Sox would be in the similar situation as the Mariners were after the Erik Bedard deal. An injured southpaw while the rest of the deal being a huge bonanza for the Twinkies…
The Santana sweepstakes was way too high, and the Sox in hindsight made the right move. Also John Farrell advocating not to trade Lester, and Farrell was right. Theo and the Sox Management are big proponents in not bidding against themselves. It wasn’t just the trade, the Sox had to guarantee Santana a long term contract. The Halladay sweepstakes are very similar. The Jays’ demands were too unrealistic, so the only team who seriously offered a trade for Halladay, the Phillies, turned around and traded for Cliff Lee instead.
The Sox made a great trade for Crisp in getting Ramirez. Coco was a great centerfielder, but he couldn’t hit for power or average anymore. I would rather traded Coco in the beginning of 2008, but the Sox waited to trade him at pretty good time.
I am not worried about Wake’s back surgery as much as his other disc, and if the problem was degeneration from age.
Compare to someone like a pitcher who throws high heat, Wake needs his back to throw his change up and to field. He can throw his knuckleball for 9 innings and less stress than on his shoulder and back than any other pitch. One reason knuckleballers last so long in the MLB. the stess is going to be his change up.
I don’t think it makes anyone happy that Wake is hurt or will be in pain, but he also took a pay cut, which can help with getting another starter, or a rent a player.
The key for Wake is as long as he eats innings and can give the bullpen a rest, he has done his job.
At least part of that IS due to Safeco.
If another part of that was due to injury, I’m not too unhappy about any potential signing at 8-10 million, I guess.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 1:28 AM EST up reply actions
.717 Away in '09
So his improved away #s in ‘09, an admittedly off year, were lower than Marco Scutaro’s career numbers. 2008 was .862, but that’s got to be at least a little concerning. Safeco’s a pitcher’s park, but it’s not PETCO.
Sure it ain't PETCO but it's a tough park for RHH
Check this
To zobrist; verb – to overlook the superiority of a person or object based on misleading sensory or conversational factors. e.g. "My teacher totally zobristed me on that paper – I’d included all the points he asked for but I didn’t drone on about Grover Cleveland enough. He’s totally biased towards Cleveland. What’s worse is that Danny Dukowski got an A, and his prose style is terrible. He’s a total Victorino." deadspy3 - Amazin' Avenue
by bloodysock04 on Dec 10, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
By the way, a quick look at Ramirez
A once-dominant offensive player whose production has fallen dramatically since hitting AAA. While he’s always had pretty good patience, managing BB rates over 10% even in his down year in ‘09, he’s also struck out pretty consistently, with the problem spiking last year. He’s had poor results in very limited time at the MLB. He’s flashed a good power bat in previous years. Some of Ramirez’ troubles may have to do with a wrist injury last year. If he heals up well and displays his old hitting stroke, he could be a surprisingly big get.
Ramirez has traditionally gotten a good deal of flak for his defense behind the plate, but his reputation has softened of late with reports of more average defense. Still, he’s not gonna throw a ton of guys out or win Gold Gloves—well, those are pretty unrepresentative of actual skill anyways, but eh.
USG
Why not Figgings then?
why have we waited so long when Figgins was still on the market 2 days ago? Cause the price on Beltre has fallen hard now with the Phillies and Mariners having a 3b and the Angels most likely gonna make Wood their 3b?
by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 10, 2009 1:27 AM EST reply actions
Most likely.
Not like the Yanks can drive up the price for him either!
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Dec 10, 2009 1:28 AM EST up reply actions
Now that's a legit question.
If we do sign Beltre, it had better be for markedly less than the 36/4 that Figgins is getting.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 1:30 AM EST up reply actions
4/36 for figgins is a pretty sweet deal id love that
even if he cant repeat his last years performance he is prolly still worth 4.5, 4, 3.5 and 3 War over the 4 years with potential for more. Thats a damn bargain contract
by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 10, 2009 1:33 AM EST up reply actions
Fans Projection
on Fangraphs have Lowell at 1.6 WAR and Beltre at 2.4 WAR for next season, highly unlikely that eating more than 6M of Lowells contract and bringing in Beltre is worth it.
by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 10, 2009 1:35 AM EST reply actions
They have Beltre at 4.2
That’s pretty significant.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 1:39 AM EST up reply actions
ehm yeah mixed up some numbers there
but http://www.baseballprojection.com/2010/freeagent2010.htm
has Beltre at only 2.2
I guess im just pissed we didn do that earlier and grab Figgins then
by German Red Sox Fan on Dec 10, 2009 1:48 AM EST up reply actions
Reports out of Texas is that the Sox will eat at least 8M
JD’s like, "you want some fucking pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, bitches!"- RCCook
Not as bad as 12, I suppose.
4 million more to getting Holliday? Maybe?
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:00 AM EST up reply actions
You spent all night talkin' about that, huh?
Anything official?
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
Nope
Still in limbo with the medical documents.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:42 AM EST up reply actions
I would love to get Mad Max but this wrist injury scares me a bit!
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
I think it's more the other way around.
I’m certainly hoping Max heals up, though. Would be nice to have someone OPS .900 in Pawtucket. >_>
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Dec 10, 2009 2:45 AM EST up reply actions
Yes indeed
LOVE the bat speed: He could be something special and I won’t mind seeing some talent in Pawtucket again: Reddick, Kalish and Nava in the OF plus Mad Max behind the dish would be….um… Sexy?
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
So we have 160 comments in 2 hours,
and not one is from bs?
Is he still sulking about the Gators?
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Haha! I think he said something about not using OTM during the school week.....
"Hating the New York Yankees is as American as apple pie, unwed mothers and cheating on your income tax." -- Mike Royko
by sox-inda-south on Dec 10, 2009 5:36 AM EST up reply actions
Oh .My. God
Sean O is in the house? Firebrand’s Sean O?
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
Are you being serious?
That arguement gets messy above….
"Hating the New York Yankees is as American as apple pie, unwed mothers and cheating on your income tax." -- Mike Royko
by sox-inda-south on Dec 10, 2009 5:36 AM EST up reply actions
No I'm not
Thing is, I know the guy! You think you’ve seen it all with NG? This cat skepticism is off the charts!
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Swisher ends Orioles sweep dreams with timely homer
- Create-a-Caption: Dusty Baker wants YOU to buy playoff tickets
- Padres' Heath Bell wistful about Trevor Hoffman's 600th save
- Want your first career home run? Face a pitcher from Chicago
- Slumpbot .200: Phil Hughes runs into New York's Joba Rules
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
