One more Theo

by reversecursing on Dec 23, 2009 2:54 PM EST

The offense, as it is currently constructed, is solid but probably not capable to win a World Series with. So how to correct it? Trade for Adrian Gonzalez? No, at least not yet.

I think the Red Sox should sign Matt Holliday to play left field for next season. The addition of Holliday, while costly, would provide the Sox one more power bat.

But what about Mike Cameron, you might ask? In 2008, the starting outfield was Manny Ramirez/ Jason Bay, Jacoby Ellsbury and JD Drew. With the young Jacoby Ellsbury struggling, Francona was able to find Coco Crisp playing time.

In fact, Crisp played in 118 games that year while recording over 400 plate appearances (409).

Mike Cameron could be the 2010 version of Crisp while starting against tough left-handed pitchers.

This move would allow Theo to keep his prospects for them to either pan out or to be used at a later time. This move would also allow prospects like Lars Anderson and Michael Bowden to re-acclaim their status as legit prospects.

Here's the beauty of the deal: The Sox would gain a top-hitting left fielder who can play defense (Holliday) while utilizing Cameron against tough lefty's. Theo wants to add to the offense but he doesn't want to deal his prospects. Clay Buchholz gets to stay for good and the best rotation in baseball is kept intact.

This would give Kotchman the opportunity to play for a year while not tying down the corner-infield positions like Adrian Beltre would. If you add Beltre, and I understand he's the best defensive third-baseman in baseball, there aren't any positions on the diamond that could be easily upgradeable offensively speaking.

During the year, if Kotchman was to struggle, then the Sox could pull off a deadline deal for Adrian Gonzalez while basing a package with Anderson or Bowden instead of Rizzo or Kalish.

There's only one problem in this plan: the Sox would be over the CBT. I'm not so sure if Theo would want to pay this...

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Cameron has, I believe, a clause in his contract gauranteeing him the starter's job.

And $18 million for Holliday would not only put us over the CBT, it’d likely cripple us in FA for years to come.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 23, 2009 3:23 PM EST reply actions

Can you explain how it would cripple us?

WIth the Lowell, Lugo and Ortiz salaries coming off of the books I think we’d be fine.

"Why not us?"

by reversecursing on Dec 23, 2009 4:00 PM EST up reply actions

Lowell, lugo and Ortiz will be something like $33.5 million

Holliday will be more than half of that amount of money. Beckett will also be making more money, or we’ll need to find a different pitcher who will cost quite a bit. This leaves us with little flexibility for one of the strongest FA classes in recent recollection. This means in the future, we’ll either need to scale back our team significantly of give in to paying the 40% tax rate for a long, long time.

by wolf9309 on Dec 23, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions

Beckett could be gone

With Buchholz emerging and the signing of Lackey.

If you look at our payroll, we only have about 80 million tied into 2011.

IF the Sox sign Holliday, they wouldn’t have to spend a dime next season. Kelly could take over for Buchholz and Buchholz for Beckett.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tz8qHiYrIzlFtVnly7gibjw&output=html

"Why not us?"

by reversecursing on Dec 23, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions

Kelly cannot take over for Buchholz next year. He will not be ready.

They will still need a 3rd baseman and DH, too. Unless Lars comes back, they’ll need to spend on at least one of those positions even accepting that we’d be starting (Ick!) Casey Kotchman

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 23, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions

Don't forget

The Sox will have to re-sign VMart or another catcher. Pedroia and Lester’s salaries will increase, etc.

I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.

by Drugs Delaney on Dec 23, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions

Pedroia and Lester's salaries won't increase as far as CBT is concerned

which for now at least seem to be their prime concern.

by wolf9309 on Dec 23, 2009 4:26 PM EST up reply actions

Kelly is not going to be in the opening day plans for 2011

the kid has not pitched above high A ball. They have high hopes for him, but it’s very early

by wolf9309 on Dec 23, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions

Because we've already spent the money coming from the Lowell, Lugo, and Ortiz contracts next year.

We’re at about $170 million right now. Factor in arbitration raises, and come 2011 we would basically be right up against the CBT yet again without having signed anyone to replace any of them, with the 40% rate bearing down.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 23, 2009 4:15 PM EST up reply actions

Holliday would be an unreasonable amount of money to add at this point.

by wolf9309 on Dec 23, 2009 3:37 PM EST reply actions

This is all based on the assumption that our offense is missing something.

A theory I don’t buy into. The players that we have right now (assuming Lowell sticks around) will still form a very good lineup, one that doesn’t even HAVE to be as good due to increased defense and a healthy/improved pitching rotation. Offense is only one facet of this game. Maybe we’ve taken a small step back in offense but I think we have taken large steps forward in the pitching and defense departments.

Plus adding Holliday is just too much and would push us over the CBT, something Theo has said he will not do so it’s not going to happen. There is nothing wrong with an outfield of Ellsbury, Cameron and Drew at all.

"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.

by Rogue Nine on Dec 23, 2009 5:47 PM EST reply actions

According to my estimations and things I have read

we’ll already be over the CBT being that the Lowell deal with Texas has fallen though. Albeit just slightly over, we’re still over. They either need to cut back on the payroll just a tad, reconstruct a contract which might still not be enough to get us under the $170 million threshold or break the bank since we’re over already, sign Holliday or Beltre at the 22.5% for 2010.

Knowing that Lugo, Lowell, and Ortiz would be coming off the books would pull us even with the lux tax limit for 2011 taking into account the arb ready players coming up.

The writer brings up good points. The problem becomes what would we do, should something along these lines happen if 1)Mike Cameron’s contract does indeed include such a crazy clause in it promising him any starting position. (I honestly doubt that’s in there) I mean the game changes on a dime. You can’t “promise” anyone a starting position until you’ve been able to see how they will preform on the field, much less include something like that in their contract which would in effect supersede your manager’s authority. and 2) The FO is ready and willing to be hit with this tax for quite possibly the foreseeable future. I think that would be the thing that would lend pause to this idea.

I still think it’s an interesting conversation though.

by Red Sox Raider on Dec 23, 2009 7:00 PM EST reply actions

There's no chance we're put over the CBT by Lowell.

Theo won’t sit idle. Either they’ll move Hermida or find some other way, but they’re not going to accept the tax rate bump based on $1 million over.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 23, 2009 7:07 PM EST up reply actions

Cameron starting

I believe Mike Cameron will be the opening day starter. I do not believe he has a guarantee to start. How could you even do that? What if he is hitting a under .200 in June?

by Scoop1981 on Dec 27, 2009 10:25 AM EST up reply actions

isn't the bump

only on the amount that we’re over? So 22.5% of the mil?

by Red Sox Raider on Dec 23, 2009 7:08 PM EST reply actions

it would be 30%

and yes, but it means that the rate raises for next year, so it can become significant. Because Theo has been trying to stay under, it is logical to assume it is because he hopes to go over next year at the lower rate, which may become unaffordable if next year we have to pay 40% instead of 22.5%.

Check out the article I wrote on this yesterday, it may make a little more sense.

by wolf9309 on Dec 23, 2009 7:33 PM EST up reply actions

Oh yeah Wolf

30%…yikes…

I’m satisfied with the product we’re going to be running out there on the field for 2010. I think anything we do after what already has been done would need to be in the area of ‘blockbuster’. Otherwise… PLAY BALL!

by Red Sox Raider on Dec 24, 2009 7:30 PM EST up reply actions

BTW Wolf

That was an incredible piece. Nice job!

by Red Sox Raider on Dec 24, 2009 7:31 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks so much

glad I was able to clear it up for some people

by wolf9309 on Dec 24, 2009 8:53 PM EST up reply actions

altough it would be pretty stupid to eat that from a business standpoint

by Red Sox Raider on Dec 23, 2009 7:09 PM EST reply actions

How do you figure?

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 23, 2009 7:41 PM EST up reply actions

Talking about luxury tax right?

It’s stupid because you’re paying money that gets you nothing in return. It’s wasteful

by Schulz on Dec 24, 2009 10:57 AM EST up reply actions

I thought we were talking Lowell.

I misread it as a reply to something else.

USG

by Ben Buchanan on Dec 24, 2009 6:10 PM EST up reply actions

trade beckett

Miguel Cabrera IS the solution to our problems.
Release Jason Varitek before ST is over !
Do not pay Jason Bay !!
Trade Buchholz !!!

by gizmosandy on Dec 23, 2009 7:39 PM EST reply actions

this just makes no sense to me from any standpoint

the return from him wouldn’t be enough to net us someone like Gonzalez. One year of Beckett is not equal to the rest of Buchholz’ contract, so we will not get prospects that will be able to replace Buchholz in any trade, and that is the only possible reason I can see you would want to do it.

Otherwise, it’s just putting a question mark in our very solid rotation for no particular gain. Is there someone particular you would like to trade him for that you think is reasonable?

by wolf9309 on Dec 23, 2009 8:35 PM EST up reply actions

Tradebacks!

Lowell and Beckett for Hanley straight up!

by Schulz on Dec 24, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions

haha right

I forgot about the “backsies” clause in the MLB rules

by wolf9309 on Dec 24, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions

Lineup

I like your plan, but I don’t think the Sox are going to sign Bay or Holliday. I believe they will go into the season with the starting lineup, including Cameron, Kotchman/Lowell and go from there. With the starting pitching and improved defense, a full season of V-Mart, they believe they will be fine for the start of the season and can make a move in June or July for bat. They will have a number of prospects to deal and money to spend, so they should have options. Remember, some teams will be looking to dump players/salaries by July.

by Scoop1981 on Dec 27, 2009 10:22 AM EST reply actions

For all you CBT Tax guys........

Nick Cafardo on Boston.com talks about how the Sox could still sign Bay or Holliday and still fit under the tax threshold by backloading the contracts beyond 2010, since they will have @$48 mil. coming off the books after 2010. So if they have $10 mil. to spend in 2010 under the tax, simply bump up the contract value in subsequent years to get to the total value.

by Scoop1981 on Dec 28, 2009 3:14 PM EST reply actions

yes and this demonstrates

that Cafardo (along with most people) has a very minimal understanding of how CBT works. He is incorrect, CBT is calculated using AAV. The agreement is available to view on the MLBPA page if you’re interested in seeing it.

by wolf9309 on Dec 28, 2009 8:34 PM EST up reply actions