PDA

View Full Version : Epstein prepared to make changes



ieddyi
06-12-05, 09:55 AM
" ``I think we're reluctant to give up on some guys who've performed for us and who have a track record,'' Epstein said. ``But it reaches a point where what you have isn't working and you've got to make some changes. It's a pain tolerance.''

"``We take those things very, very seriously,'' Epstein said when asked about the prospects for a deal. ``But what we have right now isn't working. It's clear. It's my fault and we have to fix it. The status quo is not really acceptable.''



http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view.bg?articleid=89045

Prickly Pete
06-12-05, 10:03 AM
Sounds like he's just trying to get some guys fired up, because realistically, their options are fairly limited. They could cut a guy here or there, like Embree, but they need Schilling to return and they need Arroyo, Wells and Wakefield to pitch better. Manny starting to hit would help, too, but they've been scoring enough runs in general.

I just don't see a Nomar-type trade to shake things up.

38Special
06-12-05, 10:20 AM
What Prickly Pete said. Its funny how much is said about the Yankees struggles, when the Sox are only 2 games ahead of them and also struggling. Manny among others have not been hitting, and the starting and relief pitching has been very mediocre. The only even remotely dependable arm in their pen has been Timlin, and even putting the Schilling issues aside, everyone outside of Clement has underperformed.

nhyankeefan
06-12-05, 10:22 AM
Who would the Sox trade? They've said Ramirez is untouchable and Shoppach's trade value has collapsed since he was called up. I know they have a lot of lower level prosepects, but how much will they bring?

ieddyi
06-12-05, 10:22 AM
Sounds like he's just trying to get some guys fired up, because realistically, their options are fairly limited. They could cut a guy here or there, like Embree, but they need Schilling to return and they need Arroyo, Wells and Wakefield to pitch better. Manny starting to hit would help, too, but they've been scoring enough runs in general.

I just don't see a Nomar-type trade to shake things up.

There's no Nomar this year to jettison. Everybody is looking for starting and relief pitching. Who can they trade that will bring anything worthwhile back? Ortiz- he's a bargain, it would be crazy to let him go. Manny- they couldn't give him away for free when he was hitting well.Renteria- not with that contract unless they pay 4-5M of it. Damon- a possibility, but what would you get ofr a 3 month rental knowing he is a Broas client. Meuller- there's some value there. Millar, Bellhorn, Nixon (injured) not likely. Arroyo might be interesting because he's still relatively cheap, but they need pitching,not to trade pitchers.
I wonder if their ability to find players that doextremely well at Fenway might be a disadvantage come trade time? Millar, if he was hitting well would be a problem trade as he hits so much worse away from Fenway

ryanm1058123
06-12-05, 10:41 AM
Who would the Sox trade? They've said Ramirez is untouchable and Shoppach's trade value has collapsed since he was called up. I know they have a lot of lower level prosepects, but how much will they bring?

As of right now, they are in the same position as us. Very few prospects above the AA level, loaded in the A ball level.

38Special
06-12-05, 10:44 AM
I think you're forgetting Hanley Ramirez, whos already been nominated for the HOF.

ryanm1058123
06-12-05, 10:45 AM
I think you're forgetting Hanley Ramirez, whos already been nominated for the HOF.

The same Hanley Ramirez that has Edgar Renteria blocking him for the next 4 years..? :P

Prickly Pete
06-12-05, 10:48 AM
As of right now, they are in the same position as us. Very few prospects above the AA level, loaded in the A ball level.
Actually, pretty much all of their top 12-15 prospects are in AA or above except for one (SP Anibal Sanchez, who is at High-A).

I'm not saying their farm system is good -- they have very few "high-ceiling" guys and none of them at AAA -- but their best prospects (such as they are) are almost all at AA Portland.

nhyankeefan
06-12-05, 10:49 AM
As of right now, they are in the same position as us. Very few prospects above the AA level, loaded in the A ball level.

They're AA team has some good prospects too, but I think they will have some trouble making trades. Especially if the Angels, Braves and Twins are in the market.

ojo
06-12-05, 10:51 AM
portland sea dogs have a great little ball park. damn i love that town.

NDBoston
06-12-05, 10:55 AM
I think you're forgetting Hanley Ramirez, whos already been nominated for the HOF.

I thought Eric Duncan and Phillip Hughes were getting in first.

;)

JDPNYY
06-12-05, 10:59 AM
I thought Eric Duncan and Phillip Hughes were getting in first.

;)

Why can't they all go in the same year? :D

Prickly Pete
06-12-05, 11:02 AM
I think you're forgetting Hanley Ramirez, whos already been nominated for the HOF.
He's got nothing on Philip Hughes, who I hear is "teh jesus" down there in low-A ball.

Espinosa's Glasses
06-12-05, 11:06 AM
I don't think anyone would take Manny because of the contract... I mean no one would claim him off of waivers even but... he would be the person to get rid of... him and Hanley... If they can't get rid of Manny... they have to move him in the order...

... I don't know what in God's name else that they can do... from what I hear... their farm system isn't that fruitful either...

Mystic Merlyn
06-12-05, 11:07 AM
I would not be surprised if they did everything they could to trade Manny. It probably won't happen, but they are always looking to rid themselves of his contract.

nhyankeefan
06-12-05, 11:25 AM
The Sox will never trade Manny. He's off to the worst start of his career - if you take away his 3 biggest games he'd be hitting .225 with a .382 SP and 6 HR's and 28 RBI's. That, coupled with his subpar defense and huge contract makes him untradeable.

Espinosa's Glasses
06-12-05, 11:29 AM
This is over 2 and a half months though... .316/.411/.599, 400+ HR, and 1300+ RBI's have to count for something...

nhyankeefan
06-12-05, 11:44 AM
This is over 2 and a half months though... .316/.411/.599, 400+ HR, and 1300+ RBI's have to count for something...

True, but teams are going to expect a lot more for $20M yr. They couldn't give him away for free 2 years ago.

NYYBombshell
06-12-05, 11:47 AM
If Epstein is looking to fire his team up, I guess that means we should anticipate a bench-clearing brawl the next time the two teams get together.

NHYank
06-12-05, 11:56 AM
Epstein is clever and will make something happen. Compare the Redsox decision model versus the Yankees. Epstein has a bunch of talent evaluators who are ex GM's and a group of stat geeks that he takes advice from. He has to run things past Lucchino and Henry and can move fast. Look at the Yankee dysfuntional model. Cashman, Michael and NY crew have to convince the Tampa management group and the Steinbrenner buddies on ideas. Everyone is off doing their own thing including George. This process looks like the US Senate. Can anyone reach consensus in a timely manner?

yanksphan
06-12-05, 11:57 AM
Manny for Jaret Wright. Straight up. :D

Pepper03
06-12-05, 11:59 AM
I would prefer them to try and ride this out, and see what happens with Schilling. If he can't come back and be somewhere close to his normal self, I don't see the Red Sox being able to contend for the championship this year.
I would be OK with accepting whatever happens this season instead of trading any prospects the Red Sox believe can play in the big leagues within the next two years.
The Red Sox need to start getting younger anyway. I just think they have so many holes right now that one or two moves isn't going to make much of a difference, and I am more concerned with the future of the team.
The only thing that will right this ship is the players they already have playing the way they are capable of playing.

VFBundy
06-12-05, 01:05 PM
Manny for Jaret Wright. Straight up. :DI was hoping for a DH/1B trade...Ortiz for Giambi. Hell, throw in Kevin Brown, too.

YankeePride1967
06-12-05, 01:08 PM
I would not be surprised if they did everything they could to trade Manny. It probably won't happen, but they are always looking to rid themselves of his contract.


How much of his contract would Boston be willing to eat?

bnorris85
06-12-05, 01:29 PM
well the mets are stupid....how bout manny, damon, and wells for beltran, floyd, and pedro......

if this were a mcdonalds commercial it would say "hey it could happen"

too bad its not a mcdonalds commercial

IronCaballo4
06-12-05, 01:45 PM
How about Brown and Giambi for Jay Payton? :lol:


So sad

BambinosRing
06-12-05, 05:49 PM
There will be some big trades coming out of Boston before the deadline, the question is just who is willing to deal? I think the question is whether they're going to go for it all this year and trade the future of the team away (Shoppavich, possibly some other young guys at Pawtucket), or trade away some big names in order to get some youth in the bullpen (think about Ramirez + Millar + Mirabelli all on the trade block given how much backup they have at those positions).

BambinosRing
06-12-05, 05:50 PM
And, as has been pointed out above, there's no excess of love for Damon in the clubhouse. I don't think anybody would cry to see him go (and his BA these days could fetch a pretty penny).

bnorris85
06-12-05, 06:02 PM
And, as has been pointed out above, there's no excess of love for Damon in the clubhouse. I don't think anybody would cry to see him go (and his BA these days could fetch a pretty penny).


can u elaborate on this...this is the first i have heard that players dont like him :dunno:

Pepper03
06-12-05, 06:38 PM
I'd also like to hear more, because I've never heard he isn't well liked either.

jeterjuice
06-12-05, 06:40 PM
Millar and Mueller packaged with some mid-level prospects for decent relief pitchers seems like the likely scenario at the moment, as Youkilis is ready to step in as full time 3rd base or part time with Olerud as platoon/defensive replacement. Damon will not be going anywhere in trade, nor would I expect Hanley Ramirez unless it's some sort of block buster deal that nets the Sox something fabulous in return. I wouldn't be surprised to see Pedroia called up after the AS break to replace Vazquez on the roster to maybe put some heat on Bellhorn to start getting going a little better. While I do not think Shoppach's value has collapsed, they certainly didn't help the cause by trying to showcase him against a fireballer like Bartolo Colon.

jeterjuice
06-12-05, 06:51 PM
"[i] ``I think we're reluctant to give up on some guys who've performed for us and who have a track record,'' Epstein said. ``But it reaches a point where what you have isn't working and you've got to make some changes. It's a pain tolerance.''

http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view.bg?articleid=89045

Good morning Mr. Embree, this is your wake up call.....

bnorris85
06-12-05, 06:51 PM
if mueller got some credit for his defense they would be able to get more in return...the guy makes some unbelievable plays...i think he was a webgem 3 nights in a row last week

jeterjuice
06-12-05, 06:56 PM
if mueller got some credit for his defense they would be able to get more in return...the guy makes some unbelievable plays...i think he was a webgem 3 nights in a row last week


Yeah, I only mentioned him because he could be immediately replaced by Youkilis, but he really isn't a guy I'd part with. I also mentioned him with Millar due to the fact they are short money who are both FA's at the end of the season. Teams could get a mid-level prospect with one of those guys now, and gain some payroll flexibility at the end of the season.

Kulish29
06-12-05, 07:26 PM
I would not be surprised if they did everything they could to trade Manny. It probably won't happen, but they are always looking to rid themselves of his contract.

That's the first thing that came to mind when I thought about guys the Red Sox could trade. Would the Mets still be interested?

Kulish29
06-12-05, 07:28 PM
Brian Daubach is putting up great numbers for the Norfolk Tides. ;)

bnorris85
06-12-05, 07:49 PM
Yeah, I only mentioned him because he could be immediately replaced by Youkilis, but he really isn't a guy I'd part with. I also mentioned him with Millar due to the fact they are short money who are both FA's at the end of the season. Teams could get a mid-level prospect with one of those guys now, and gain some payroll flexibility at the end of the season.


yeah especially sense they are most likley not going to resign mueller anyways

jeterjuice
06-12-05, 07:55 PM
yeah especially sense they are most likley not going to resign mueller anyways

I really think it depends on how those two guys finish up. If the season ended today, I'd be bringing Mueller back on a one year plus option deal and replacing Millar with Youkilis. If Millar finishes the season with one of his patented half-year streaks, I'm signing Millar and putting Youkilis at third. No way they both come back next year with Youkilis still around. Although they play at opposite corners of the infield, Millar and Mueller are essentially battling each other for a job next year.

(He says as Youkilis lets a ball go through :))

ieddyi
06-12-05, 08:42 PM
I really think it depends on how those two guys finish up. If the season ended today, I'd be bringing Mueller back on a one year plus option deal and replacing Millar with Youkilis. If Millar finishes the season with one of his patented half-year streaks, I'm signing Millar and putting Youkilis at third. No way they both come back next year with Youkilis still around. Although they play at opposite corners of the infield, Millar and Mueller are essentially battling each other for a job next year.

(He says as Youkilis lets a ball go through :))

Why in the world would Mueller do a one year plus option ( i assume you mean a team option )

Unless he has the same agent as Ortez and Wakefield

BronxByTheBay
06-12-05, 09:04 PM
Whatever changes Epstein makes, we can all be assured that they will be cost-effective.

Remember: the key to making Red Sox fans happy are moves that save the organization money.

jeterjuice
06-12-05, 09:36 PM
Why in the world would Mueller do a one year plus option ( i assume you mean a team option )

Unless he has the same agent as Ortez and Wakefield

Yes, I mean team option....Mueller is a good guy, but those knees have seen more knives than a Ron Popeil infomercial....any multi-year deal he desires will not come from Theo so long as they retain Youkilis (or Hanley Ramiriez, but I feel he's going to be the anti-dote to any demands by Damon for anything over 3 years).

Saxmania
06-13-05, 02:59 AM
Remember: the key to making Red Sox fans happy are moves that save the organization money.

Trading for Curt Schilling must have been a real hammer-blow.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

cubswin
06-13-05, 04:11 AM
Whatever changes Epstein makes, we can all be assured that they will be cost-effective.

Remember: the key to making Red Sox fans happy are moves that save the organization money.

Cost effective is important, though not the goal, when a team has a budget. Kind of like Yanks fans may have experienced this winter, when other contracts seemingly prevented them from getting Beltran.

ieddyi
06-13-05, 05:56 AM
Yes, I mean team option....Mueller is a good guy, but those knees have seen more knives than a Ron Popeil infomercial....any multi-year deal he desires will not come from Theo so long as they retain Youkilis (or Hanley Ramiriez, but I feel he's going to be the anti-dote to any demands by Damon for anything over 3 years).


So, you're saying that he will recieve better , longer term offers from other teams, but will choose to stay with the Sawx?? Ottez was very stupid in signing a contract way below market value. Wakefield also sogned a terrible deal because he has family ties in Boston. IS playing for Boston such a lovefest that players will all sacrifice to play there?

I didn't know Hanley was ready to take over 3rd base next year. Exactly how many games has he played there?

ieddyi
06-13-05, 05:58 AM
Trading for Curt Schilling must have been a real hammer-blow.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

That option for 2007 that vested for $13M when they won the WS might pinch a bit

Saxmania
06-13-05, 07:12 AM
That option for 2007 that vested for $13M when they won the WS might pinch a bit

I agree, and I thought so at the time - that they were overpaying for the present (2004). As it happens, it worked out well (although it came very, very close to being a catastrophe when Curt's ankle couldn't support him - note, no ego joke), but in that case Epstein chose to hike up payroll significantly in a single deal. Just an indication that money isn't always the bottom line in these cases, though for most teams it's obviously more important than it used to be for New York.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

pjfan
06-13-05, 07:29 AM
And, as has been pointed out above, there's no excess of love for Damon in the clubhouse. I don't think anybody would cry to see him go (and his BA these days could fetch a pretty penny).

i'd love to see a link or qoute backing this up

jeterjuice
06-13-05, 07:34 AM
So, you're saying that he will recieve better , longer term offers from other teams, but will choose to stay with the Sawx?? Ottez was very stupid in signing a contract way below market value. Wakefield also sogned a terrible deal because he has family ties in Boston. IS playing for Boston such a lovefest that players will all sacrifice to play there?

I didn't know Hanley was ready to take over 3rd base next year. Exactly how many games has he played there?

No, I said I don't think he'll get a multiyear deal from the Sox, considering the alternatives they have for that position. Whether he'd take it or not is entirely up to him, same as it was for Ortiz and Wakefield. I don't think there is anything remotely close to a lovefest, when you consider the contracts rejected by Pedro, Lowe, and Nomar. Again, individual choice. Regarding Hanley, you'd have to look it up yourself, but I'd guess he's played zero games at 3rd. But when they go and sign Renteria to four years, I'm guessing either a trade or position move is what they are thinking for Hanley, certainly not keeping him in the minors 4 more years.

cubswin
06-13-05, 08:47 AM
So, you're saying that he will recieve better , longer term offers from other teams, but will choose to stay with the Sawx?? Ottez was very stupid in signing a contract way below market value. Wakefield also sogned a terrible deal because he has family ties in Boston. IS playing for Boston such a lovefest that players will all sacrifice to play there?

I didn't know Hanley was ready to take over 3rd base next year. Exactly how many games has he played there?

stupid? Maybe he just was glad with the money he was getting. Seems like players get bashed now no matter what kind of contract they signed.

(btw, Nixon also signed a reasonable or below-mkt deal)

jeterjuice
06-13-05, 09:07 AM
stupid? Maybe he just was glad with the money he was getting. Seems like players get bashed now no matter what kind of contract they signed.

(btw, Nixon also signed a reasonable or below-mkt deal)

I don't bash Ortiz for signing the contract, I bash him for taking career advice from Pedro :D

pjfan
06-13-05, 09:09 AM
I think Ortiz is completely fine with the $$ he is making. He clearly enjoys playing in Boston, and is comfortable. Also, with a strong Dominican presence in Boston, i could see him staying there for a long time.

ieddyi
06-13-05, 09:41 AM
stupid? Maybe he just was glad with the money he was getting. Seems like players get bashed now no matter what kind of contract they signed.

(btw, Nixon also signed a reasonable or below-mkt deal)

When a player signs a deal for about 1/2 his worth on the open market, yes, I'd call that stupid and complete incompetence by his agent. If he feels he has enough money, he could donate portions of his salary to charity. .
I'm not bashing him at all, he's a fantastic player and should be paid closer to his real value. The Sox are not a small market team that is strapped for cash, even though at times they act like it. On the one hand they low ball Ortiz and then on the other overpay for Renteria and Varitek. IF I were Ortiz I'd be pissed that Edgar was making $4M more than me per year

Archer1979
06-13-05, 09:46 AM
When a player signs a deal for about 1/2 his worth on the open market, yes, I'd call that stupid and complete incompetence by his agent. If he feels he has enough money, he could donate portions of his salary to charity. .
I'm not bashing him at all, he's a fantastic player and should be paid closer to his real value. The Sox are not a small market team that is strapped for cash, even though at times they act like it. On the one hand they low ball Ortiz and then on the other overpay for Renteria and Varitek. IF I were Ortiz I'd be pissed that Edgar was making $4M more than me per year

FWIW, Ortiz took some bad advice from Pedro. On the other hand, Ortiz values loyalty to an unbelievable degree. When the Dominican Republic got hit by floods a little while back, he put a donation box in the clubhouse asking for donations to his fellow countrymen. John Henry heard about this and mounted an enormous fund drive of his own to help the DR. After that, I think Ortiz would have killed for the man.

NDBoston
06-13-05, 10:13 AM
When a player signs a deal for about 1/2 his worth on the open market, yes, I'd call that stupid and complete incompetence by his agent. If he feels he has enough money, he could donate portions of his salary to charity. .
I'm not bashing him at all, he's a fantastic player and should be paid closer to his real value. The Sox are not a small market team that is strapped for cash, even though at times they act like it. On the one hand they low ball Ortiz and then on the other overpay for Renteria and Varitek. IF I were Ortiz I'd be pissed that Edgar was making $4M more than me per year

The Red Sox don't "act" like a small market team. They have a budget that they have to adhere to (around 130 million). Epstein also came into the job with the Manny contract already on the books which takes up 20 million of the it this year.

Epstein looks for a mix in his players. He signs expensive players like Schilling and Foulke and plugs in holes with players that have potential but don't cost 5 million+ a year like Mueller, Miller and Bellhorn.

The Yankees are spending roughly 80 million more this year which allows them the luxury of not having to do sign those type of players if they don't want to.

ieddyi
06-13-05, 11:07 AM
The Red Sox don't "act" like a small market team. They have a budget that they have to adhere to (around 130 million). Epstein also came into the job with the Manny contract already on the books which takes up 20 million of the it this year.

Epstein looks for a mix in his players. He signs expensive players like Schilling and Foulke and plugs in holes with players that have potential but don't cost 5 million+ a year like Mueller, Miller and Bellhorn.

The Yankees are spending roughly 80 million more this year which allows them the luxury of not having to do sign those type of players if they don't want to.

I understand that they have a budget. The question is whether that budget has to be at 130M. With the additional seating, rise in ticket prices and the buzz from winning last year, I get the feeling that if they wanted to they could spend a lot more on payroll. None of us will ever know however as the real financail picture is known to very few

UncleSam
06-13-05, 12:53 PM
I understand that they have a budget. The question is whether that budget has to be at 130M. With the additional seating, rise in ticket prices and the buzz from winning last year, I get the feeling that if they wanted to they could spend a lot more on payroll. None of us will ever know however as the real financail picture is known to very few

But raising the payroll over $130m would incur additional luxury tax payments and they really want to stay away from doing that. Also, they firmly believe that they can put a playoff-caliber team on the field every year while staying within certain financial limits. I think it's good to have some kind of restriction because it should lead to smarter decisions over time. I don't think they would move significantly above their budget in the offseason, but if a can't-miss opportunity presented itself around the trade deadline, I'm pretty sure the Sox would strongly consider it.

Snatch Catch
06-13-05, 01:05 PM
But raising the payroll over $130m would incur additional luxury tax payments and they really want to stay away from doing that. Also, they firmly believe that they can put a playoff-caliber team on the field every year while staying within certain financial limits. I think it's good to have some kind of restriction because it should lead to smarter decisions over time. I don't think they would move significantly above their budget in the offseason, but if a can't-miss opportunity presented itself around the trade deadline, I'm pretty sure the Sox would strongly consider it.

You're missing the point of what ieddyi is presenting.

What you say is all true, but what he is saying, and what we will probably never know the answer to, is what if the Sox management can support a team at a $170 mil payroll, but are choosing to leave the payroll at $130 mil so as to maximize profits?

cubswin
06-13-05, 01:08 PM
When a player signs a deal for about 1/2 his worth on the open market, yes, I'd call that stupid and complete incompetence by his agent. If he feels he has enough money, he could donate portions of his salary to charity. .
I'm not bashing him at all, he's a fantastic player and should be paid closer to his real value. The Sox are not a small market team that is strapped for cash, even though at times they act like it. On the one hand they low ball Ortiz and then on the other overpay for Renteria and Varitek. IF I were Ortiz I'd be pissed that Edgar was making $4M more than me per year

It's not incompetence if it's what the player wants and he isn't going to suffer for his decision. He shouldn't be paid his real value, or close to it -- he should be paid what he and the team agreed on.

Also, the Sox "lowballed" Ortiz? Are you sure that's what you mean?

If you were Ortiz and you were pissed about somebody making more, you'd be a baby. Not that that isn't the case for many athletes, of course. But unless you've been lied to, if you make a decision, there's no reason to be pissed later just b/c somebody else got more money.

I don't really get where you're coming from here. Unless you think the Sox lied to Ortiz somehow, I don't know what you're getting at.

cubswin
06-13-05, 01:12 PM
I understand that they have a budget. The question is whether that budget has to be at 130M. With the additional seating, rise in ticket prices and the buzz from winning last year, I get the feeling that if they wanted to they could spend a lot more on payroll. None of us will ever know however as the real financail picture is known to very few


You're missing the point of what ieddyi is presenting.

What you say is all true, but what he is saying, and what we will probably never know the answer to, is what if the Sox management can support a team at a $170 mil payroll, but are choosing to leave the payroll at $130 mil so as to maximize profits?

fwiw, my personal view is that, since I know the team has some form of budget, and I don't know the company's financials, I'm not going to spend much time worrying about whether the budget should be at 130ish. My guess is that 130 ensures a profit but that it doesn't maximize profits. Either way, it's something beyond what I know, and $130mm is a pretty high budget for a team, so I'm going to focus more on what they do with that money than on what the money should be.

Kceracerone
06-13-05, 01:17 PM
I understand that they have a budget. The question is whether that budget has to be at 130M. With the additional seating, rise in ticket prices and the buzz from winning last year, I get the feeling that if they wanted to they could spend a lot more on payroll. None of us will ever know however as the real financail picture is known to very few
One of the Sox objectives that the current Sox ownership has identified is to get their payroll under the luxary tax threshold. They have been over that threshold amount for the past two years but actually lowered their payroll in 2005. The luxary tax threshold is $128 million for 2005 and I believe $136 in 2006.

I think that many of their personnel decisions are factored against this objective. That is not to say that they can't or won't spend over this amount if they think they have the opportunity to make a move that will greatly improve their chances of winning it all. Their owners aren't cheap and I think they understand the concept of return on equity.

However, if I look at their team I not sure what moves they can make other than acquiring a reliever that can get someone out. Their starting pitching has been dissappointing at best but who can they get that will be a definite upgrade over what they have? In someways it is very similar to the Yankees(when it comes to starting pitching issues).

Snatch Catch
06-13-05, 01:21 PM
fwiw, my personal view is that, since I know the team has some form of budget, and I don't know the company's financials, I'm not going to spend much time worrying about whether the budget should be at 130ish. My guess is that 130 ensures a profit but that it doesn't maximize profits. Either way, it's something beyond what I know, and $130mm is a pretty high budget for a team, so I'm going to focus more on what they do with that money than on what the money should be.

Fair enough.

NDBoston
06-13-05, 01:26 PM
I understand that they have a budget. The question is whether that budget has to be at 130M. With the additional seating, rise in ticket prices and the buzz from winning last year, I get the feeling that if they wanted to they could spend a lot more on payroll. None of us will ever know however as the real financail picture is known to very few

First of all, the new ownership have put millions of dollars in improvements to Femway Park since buying the team. They continue to do that and I've hear rumors on plans on moving the grandstand seats to face home plate which will be a MASSIVE, expensive undertaking.

The additional seats add up to about an extra thousand. The "buzz" from last year does nothing when it comes to merchandise since that's shared with the other teams and the MLBPA. The Red Sox sold out every seat last year and only added 500 new seats this year. Not a huge revenue jump when you figure in the cost of adding those seats on the RF roof

I've actually done plenty of reading on this (via Andrew Zimbalist among others).

The Red Sox actually matched the Yankees in 2003 when it came to gate revenue. Amazing when you think of the two different capacities.

The big advantage NY has is the media market. YES can sell commercial time at a much higher rate in the #1 media market, while it receives $2 per household per month for YES. The number of subscribers for YES triples NESN.

UncleSam
06-13-05, 01:34 PM
You're missing the point of what ieddyi is presenting.

What you say is all true, but what he is saying, and what we will probably never know the answer to, is what if the Sox management can support a team at a $170 mil payroll, but are choosing to leave the payroll at $130 mil so as to maximize profits?

I absolutely understood the point and was saying that they choose to keep it at $130m to avoid paying the luxury tax. The ownership group is too smart financially to think it makes sense to pay an extra 30 cents on the dollar to go above the threshold.

The combination of the renovations, building additional seating and the interest payments on the debt taken on to buy the team are the other restrictions keeping them from a higher payroll.

Snatch Catch
06-13-05, 01:37 PM
I absolutely understood the point and was saying that they choose to keep it at $130m to avoid paying the luxury tax. The ownership group is too smart financially to think it makes sense to pay an extra 30 cents on the dollar to go above the threshold.

The combination of the renovations, building additional seating and the interest payments on the debt taken on to buy the team are the other restrictions keeping them from a higher payroll.

You don't know that.

ieddyi
06-13-05, 02:07 PM
First of all, the new ownership have put millions of dollars in improvements to Femway Park since buying the team. They continue to do that and I've hear rumors on plans on moving the grandstand seats to face home plate which will be a MASSIVE, expensive undertaking.

The additional seats add up to about an extra thousand. The "buzz" from last year does nothing when it comes to merchandise since that's shared with the other teams and the MLBPA. The Red Sox sold out every seat last year and only added 500 new seats this year. Not a huge revenue jump when you figure in the cost of adding those seats on the RF roof

I've actually done plenty of reading on this (via Andrew Zimbalist among others).

The Red Sox actually matched the Yankees in 2003 when it came to gate revenue. Amazing when you think of the two different capacities.

The big advantage NY has is the media market. YES can sell commercial time at a much higher rate in the #1 media market, while it receives $2 per household per month for YES. The number of subscribers for YES triples NESN.


All true, but the fact that the Yankees have higher revenue means only that the Sawx can't go head to head with the Yanks financially. I agree with Uncle Sam that the Sawx have set their line in the sand at the luxury cap level. It's my feeling ( not based on any fact ) that they could spend more if they chose to. But, like I said in the original post very few actually know.

MassNYYfan
06-13-05, 02:09 PM
Brian Daubach is putting up great numbers for the Norfolk Tides. ;)

Glad I left before I had to start paying money to see him play. ;)

UncleSam
06-13-05, 02:17 PM
You don't know that.

You're right. I don't "know" it for sure. But it's based on what's been said publicly by the organization.

UncleSam
06-13-05, 02:23 PM
All true, but the fact that the Yankees have higher revenue means only that the Sawx can't go head to head with the Yanks financially. I agree with Uncle Sam that the Sawx have set their line in the sand at the luxury cap level. It's my feeling ( not based on any fact ) that they could spend more if they chose to. But, like I said in the original post very few actually know.

Absolutely. Well said. I think they could probably go higher, but John Henry made his money investing and I'm pretty sure he doesn't see how you can get a good return on investment when you have to add the luxury tax to every dollar spent above $130m.

Plus, since the Sox sell out every game already, additional salary would not generate additional revenue. It makes more sense to put the money into paying down the debt or adding seats to the stadium.

NDBoston
06-13-05, 02:34 PM
All true, but the fact that the Yankees have higher revenue means only that the Sawx can't go head to head with the Yanks financially. I agree with Uncle Sam that the Sawx have set their line in the sand at the luxury cap level. It's my feeling ( not based on any fact ) that they could spend more if they chose to. But, like I said in the original post very few actually know.

The Red Sox are over the luxury cap level (not by much but they are).

I think the Red Sox could go slightly higher, but based on what Zimbalist has said, they are just about at their limit on what they can spend and not lose money.

ieddyi
06-13-05, 02:43 PM
The Red Sox are over the luxury cap level (not by much but they are).

I think the Red Sox could go slightly higher, but based on what Zimbalist has said, they are just about at their limit on what they can spend and not lose money.

Zimbalist is a bright guy, but there is so much creative accounting going on that it's really hard to say where the lines are drawn.
I used to know a guy that pretty high up in Eli Lily Co.

I asked him how accurate the analysts view of the company was and he laughed and said that some of them were very clever, but they really didn't stand a chance, because they didn't have access to the "real" numbers

Look at all the analysts, who spend all their time focused on specific companies for a living who repeatedly proclaimed Enron to be one of the best companies EVER, while all the time it was a gigantic Ponzi scheme

Pepper03
06-13-05, 06:10 PM
So, you're saying that he will recieve better , longer term offers from other teams, but will choose to stay with the Sawx?? Ottez was very stupid in signing a contract way below market value. Wakefield also sogned a terrible deal because he has family ties in Boston. IS playing for Boston such a lovefest that players will all sacrifice to play there?

I didn't know Hanley was ready to take over 3rd base next year. Exactly how many games has he played there?

I guess it must be, because a few players have taken less to stay. :P

Hanley has never played at third in the organization, and from what I've heard they may have him play in Pawtucket next year in centerfield.

The concensus seems to be he is at least one more year away from the majors, and when he gets there, if he stays with Boston, it will not be at
shortstop.

TommyK8
06-13-05, 11:19 PM
I am a devoted Red Sox fan, but not all Red Sox fans agree with my opinion when it comes to this.

I think the Red Sox try to limit themselves to a payroll in the vicinity of the luxury salary cap first and foremost because they don't want to spend more money. That's not to say that John Henry and partners are cheap, because they could have a salary much lower and make bigger profits. They also invested in Fenway renovations. But I do think Henry and his partners are concerned with the bottom line, and they won't stray too much higher in payroll. Second, I think that Henry knows that Bud Selig handed him the Red Sox on a silver platter, and he's not going to go too far over the cap because Selig would frown on it. He is trying to lessen the payroll disparity amongst the teams, and so far, there is only one outlier. He doesn't want two.

John Henry has a unique situation in Boston. The fans are so devoted to the team right now that it borders on some kind of a euphoric frenzy. And this started before the championship was won. Consider that the Red Sox charge, by far, the highest ticket price on average in baseball. No one else is even close. Despite this, every game is sold out, and many of those seats are filled with fans who paid even more--because it's so hard to get tickets that many seats are filled with re-sold (scalped) tickets. Check out stubhub.com sometime or Ebay to see what some fans are willing to pay for a slice of the live action. You can't get season tickets to Fenway unless you already have them. There is a long waiting list for the few season tickets which are not renewed each year. Part of the crowd at each home game are holders of "standing room only" tickets. The Red Sox even have movie theaters in the area which show certain games in High Definition on the widescreen that draw packed houses. In an effort to see their beloved Red Sox, many Red Sox fans have found it easier to take to the road than fight the Fenway madness. How many Red Sox fans were in Chicago this weekend? How could there have been so many? Each year, a larger portion of the Yankee Stadium crowd seems to be Red Sox fans. Baltimore, Cleveland, Tampa Bay and Toronto are other cities where the proportion of Red Sox fans is unusually high. You can at least get tickets in those stadiums at a reasonable price.

To try to get on topic, Epstein and the Red Sox brass owe it to these fans to do everything possible to put a winner on the field. And it looks like this year, they will have to add significantly to payroll at midseason in order to upgrade. It remains to be seen whether the Red Sox will be willing to cross the line they have drawn in the sand in order to make a run for the playoffs. We know George would take money out of his own pocket to improve the Yankees, but the Red Sox doing so is not a given.

bostonyankeefan
06-13-05, 11:26 PM
stupid? Maybe he just was glad with the money he was getting. Seems like players get bashed now no matter what kind of contract they signed.

(btw, Nixon also signed a reasonable or below-mkt deal)

You are being kind to Ortiz. He is getting paid wayyy below market value, as he has become one of the best clutch hitters in the game.

cubswin
06-14-05, 12:34 AM
You are being kind to Ortiz. He is getting paid wayyy below market value, as he has become one of the best clutch hitters in the game.

Actually, I'm trying to point out that, for all the complaining that is done about players and agents reaching for every last dollar, maybe this is just a guy who got the money he was happy with, so he didn't push for more. That doesn't equal stupid -- just like ARod, Manny, Jeter, etc. aren't greedy, or bad people, b/c they got rich packages.

cubswin
06-14-05, 12:37 AM
I am a devoted Red Sox fan, but not all Red Sox fans agree with my opinion when it comes to this.

I think the Red Sox try to limit themselves to a payroll in the vicinity of the luxury salary cap first and foremost because they don't want to spend more money. That's not to say that John Henry and partners are cheap, because they could have a salary much lower and make bigger profits. They also invested in Fenway renovations. But I do think Henry and his partners are concerned with the bottom line, ...

To try to get on topic, Epstein and the Red Sox brass owe it to these fans to do everything possible to put a winner on the field. And it looks like this year, they will have to add significantly to payroll at midseason in order to upgrade. It remains to be seen whether the Red Sox will be willing to cross the line they have drawn in the sand in order to make a run for the playoffs. We know George would take money out of his own pocket to improve the Yankees, but the Red Sox doing so is not a given.

I think much of what you say is probably right. The luxury tax as a rough cap also fits in because it requires that additional players be signed below market in order to justify the expense. But they certainly are concerned about the bottom line, as they should be. I certainly don't begrudge them that.

(and btw, I'm not sure we know Steinbrenner would take money out of his own pocket to improve the Yankees, if what you mean by that is that he'll run a loss -- I don't think there's any evidence of that)

ScubaSteve
06-14-05, 06:37 AM
You're missing the point of what ieddyi is presenting.

What you say is all true, but what he is saying, and what we will probably never know the answer to, is what if the Sox management can support a team at a $170 mil payroll, but are choosing to leave the payroll at $130 mil so as to maximize profits?

We don't know, so why is there the assumption that something cheap and sinister is going on? They do have the smallest park and still owe a LOT of money for buying the team. The luxury tax hurts when its in play, just doesn't hurt the Yankees. Perhaps the sox could manage a higher payroll if not for the tax. It is what it is. Are they a small market team, NO. Do they have close to the same resources as the Yankees currently, no.

TheScooter
06-14-05, 08:46 AM
I think you're forgetting Hanley Ramirez, whos already been nominated for the HOF.

Don't forget the Hansen kid from St.John's.He already has his own wing at Cooperstown.Rollie who?Dennis who?

NDBoston
06-14-05, 08:54 AM
Don't forget the Hansen kid from St.John's.He already has his own wing at Cooperstown.Rollie who?Dennis who?

HE does? Is he in the same area near Philip Hughes and Eric Duncan?

:lol: ;)

stupidpunchline
06-14-05, 12:01 PM
Bronson Arroyo for Alfonso Soriano

yanksphan
06-14-05, 12:22 PM
Bronson Arroyo for Alfonso Soriano

Don't sell yourself short - I think you could probably get F.Codero and M.Texeria tossed in as well for a talent such as Brandon.

yanksphan
06-14-05, 04:43 PM
so much for any H.Ramirez trade rumors...per Rotoworld:


Hanley Ramirez was placed on the DL at Double-A Portland due to a strained back.
Ramirez, hitting .274/.330/.409 with 15 steals in 20 attempts, was hurt during batting practice on Saturday. Jun. 14 - 2:49 pm et

Damaged Goods! Damaged Goods! ;)

BronxByTheBay
06-14-05, 04:47 PM
Don't sell yourself short - I think you could probably get F.Codero and M.Texeria tossed in as well for a talent such as Brandon.

It could happen...if Jerry Colangelo bought the Rangers.

bnorris85
06-14-05, 05:10 PM
so much for any H.Ramirez trade rumors...per Rotoworld:



Damaged Goods! Damaged Goods! ;)


dammit i was gonna see the sea dogs in like a week...gotta push that trip back :P

somejerk
06-14-05, 05:23 PM
I think the biggest problem isn't the players, but how the players are used. If you recall at the beginning of the season the top 4 hitters in the line-up were Damon, Nixon, Ramirez, and Ortiz. During that time the Sox were 21 - 13. Then when Seattle came to Boston, Tito in his infinite wisdom changed the order to Damon, Renteria, Ortiz, Ramirez. Since then, their record is 13 - 16. I've got no problem with this order against lefties. But against righties it HAS to go. Renteria hits .234 against RHP, and .352 against LHP.

Anyone think it is a coincidence that since the line up change they have been an under .500 team?

cubswin
06-14-05, 05:54 PM
I think the biggest problem isn't the players, but how the players are used. If you recall at the beginning of the season the top 4 hitters in the line-up were Damon, Nixon, Ramirez, and Ortiz. During that time the Sox were 21 - 13. Then when Seattle came to Boston, Tito in his infinite wisdom changed the order to Damon, Renteria, Ortiz, Ramirez. Since then, their record is 13 - 16. I've got no problem with this order against lefties. But against righties it HAS to go. Renteria hits .234 against RHP, and .352 against LHP.

Anyone think it is a coincidence that since the line up change they have been an under .500 team?

I'm just wondering why they hven't switched Manny and Ortiz in the lineup, to try to get Manny more god ptiches and maybe get him out of his slump.

somejerk
06-14-05, 06:20 PM
I'm just wondering why they hven't switched Manny and Ortiz in the lineup, to try to get Manny more god ptiches and maybe get him out of his slump.

Interestingly enough, Ortiz's OPS jumped about a 100 points since the change, and Manny has lost about 100 points. Of course maybe this was due to having Millar hit in the 5-hole for so long.

nhyankeefan
06-14-05, 08:14 PM
I'm just wondering why they hven't switched Manny and Ortiz in the lineup, to try to get Manny more god ptiches and maybe get him out of his slump.

I think the reasoning is that whoever bats 4th will not get as many good pitches to hit and since Manny is a more disciplined hitter he would take the walks whereas Ortiz would swing at the bad pitches. I'm surprised too that they haven't switched the two back to help Manny.

NDBoston
06-14-05, 09:15 PM
I think the reasoning is that whoever bats 4th will not get as many good pitches to hit and since Manny is a more disciplined hitter he would take the walks whereas Ortiz would swing at the bad pitches. I'm surprised too that they haven't switched the two back to help Manny.

Manny's homered in three straight games. He's heating up.

NDBoston
06-14-05, 09:16 PM
dammit i was gonna see the sea dogs in like a week...gotta push that trip back :P

Minor League DL is only 7 days. He will be back then. According to Theo, it was a very precautionary move. Hanley should be right back in the lineup by next Monday.

Euclis
06-14-05, 09:19 PM
Their slump was due to pitching, not hitting. And in case people here hadn't noticed, Manny is breaking out. He's homered in each of the last 3 games, and his ops has jumped up 44 points in the last 4 games.

Manny's slump has really been bizarre. Against righties, Manny's ops is .973....nearly identical to his career mark of .976. What's been off is his performance against lefties. In his career, manny's ops against lefties is 1.084. So far this year, his ops against lefties is .491. I really don't know how to interpret this. Manny hasn't been all bad, he's just been downright awful against lefties. He's only had 72 PAs against lefties this year, so I'd bet on him turning it around.

hugelongtermdeal
06-15-05, 08:25 AM
Whatever changes Epstein makes, we can all be assured that they will be cost-effective.

Remember: the key to making Red Sox fans happy are moves that save the organization money.

Exactly .. Like when they signed Foulke and Schilling last year, and Renteria this year .. instead of spending the big bucks on ..... oh wait :o

BronxByTheBay
06-15-05, 08:57 AM
Exactly .. Like when they signed Foulke and Schilling last year, and Renteria this year .. instead of spending the big bucks on ..... oh wait :o

Yeah, see...I got that part. That was kinda the joke of it all.

Thanks for playing, though. You've been a lovely contestant.

BronxByTheBay
06-15-05, 09:09 AM
I have had to respond to numerous posts on here claiming Epstein acts like he is a small market GM. I thought you weren't joking either.

Nah, I wouldn't accuse Epstein of acting that way. Some Sox fans, yes -definately. The amount of obsession over what someone costs in relation to virtually every conversation about performance grates at times.

NDBoston
06-15-05, 09:16 AM
Nah, I wouldn't accuse Epstein of acting that way. Some Sox fans, yes -definately. The amount of obsession over what someone costs in relation to virtually every conversation about performance grates at times.

It could be related to the fact that most Red Sox fans realize the team won't go over 130 million and look to play GM and how to get the best players in while still staying under the number.

I'm guilty of playing GM all the time. I'm already trying to figure out who's going to be available for the bulpen next year and at what $$ since the only starter I like will go to the Yankees IMO (Burnett).

Then again, I'm a serious basebal geek. :lol:

ieddyi
06-15-05, 09:31 AM
It could be related to the fact that most Red Sox fans realize the team won't go over 130 million and look to play GM and how to get the best players in while still staying under the number.

I'm guilty of playing GM all the time. I'm already trying to figure out who's going to be available for the bulpen next year and at what $$ since the only starter I like will go to the Yankees IMO (Burnett).

Then again, I'm a serious basebal geek. :lol:

The bullpen derby for next year is gonna be fascinating. We'll both be replacing almsot the whole pen except for the top end.
It's really such a tough call predicting relievers next years skills. I hope the Yankees have learned from the Karsay fiasco that big bucks don't guarantee big returns. I think Theo's recored there is laso less stellar than the other positions. I really think it's where a GM's skills really come onto play (along with luck) as even if you have the money, throwing it at the bullpen doesn;t guarantee results. Cheap reclamation projects are no panacea either
Should be fun

Opus
06-15-05, 09:44 AM
The amount of obsession over what someone costs in relation to virtually every conversation about performance grates at times.

Ironically, that is pretty much what the job of a GM is. I'll bet it is not as much fun as many of us think it would be.

ang11
06-15-05, 11:18 AM
Could someone please tell me where they've read that Damon is not liked by his teammates? Its not something that has ever been mentioned/suggested in any of the Boston papers/talk shows/etc...

somejerk
06-15-05, 11:29 AM
Could someone please tell me where they've read that Damon is not liked by his teammates? Its not something that has ever been mentioned/suggested in any of the Boston papers/talk shows/etc...

I doubt you'll find it because he probably made it up. Why would the players dislike someone who hustles on every play, is the best lead off hitter in the AL (s ave for Ichiro), and is the team elected MLBPA union representative? Sure any good player can be a jerk, but but would you vote for someone to negotiate for you that was a total self absorbed ass?

ang11
06-15-05, 01:09 PM
i don't buy it, either. i was just wondering if someone had actually read/heard that. watching the games, it seems that he gets along with everyone, and i've never read a bad word about him from any of his teammates.

besides, he's their best all-around player right now (some would argue varitek, but i'm sticking with damon), if the red sox are going to make a run for the playoffs, they aren't trading him, regardless.

terminator
06-15-05, 01:19 PM
I doubt you'll find it because he probably made it up. Why would the players dislike someone who hustles on every play, is the best lead off hitter in the AL (s ave for Ichiro), and is the team elected MLBPA union representative? Sure any good player can be a jerk, but but would you vote for someone to negotiate for you that was a total self absorbed ass?

Not only that - but when they were deciding on the allocation of Playoff shares, Damon led the push to award as many people as possible - not just the veterans or the 25 players on the team. His contention was that the others needed (and would appreciate) the money more than the millionaires on the team.

Plus I cannot recall ever seeing an article about him being disliked by anyone. He's always been a team player. When the Sox were thinking of getting Beltran at some point, Theo approached Damon about the possibility of a switching his position - and he was ready to do that.

Jobronie
06-15-05, 03:31 PM
Could someone please tell me where they've read that Damon is not liked by his teammates? Its not something that has ever been mentioned/suggested in any of the Boston papers/talk shows/etc...I'm wondering if the poster had his Idiots mixed up, as there was talk some months back that both Theo and the players had had their fill of Millar's 'antics'.

Believe it was in the time just prior to Mientkiewicz being trade to the Mets, as it was used as the reason that it would probably be Millar who was traded, and again around the time that they were re-hyping Varitek's captaincy and holidng Varitek up as the type of player they wanted all of the New Red Sox to emulate.

Sorry, none of the reports were anything I bothered to bookmark, but it was mentioned in several places that were reputable enough to make me consider the accusation legit.......

NDBoston
06-15-05, 03:49 PM
I'm wondering if the poster had his Idiots mixed up, as there was talk some months back that both Theo and the players had had their fill of Millar's 'antics'.

Believe it was in the time just prior to Mientkiewicz being trade to the Mets, as it was used as the reason that it would probably be Millar who was traded, and again around the time that they were re-hyping Varitek's captaincy and holidng Varitek up as the type of player they wanted all of the New Red Sox to emulate.

Sorry, none of the reports were anything I bothered to bookmark, but it was mentioned in several places that were reputable enough to make me consider the accusation legit.......

Why don't you go to Google and back up your claim? I remember some Red Sox players laughing off Millar's comments on the whiskey but nothing close to what to the other poster claimed.

BronxByTheBay
06-15-05, 04:15 PM
It could be related to the fact that most Red Sox fans realize the team won't go over 130 million and look to play GM and how to get the best players in while still staying under the number.



That's great, but it's projected onto every conversation in regards to every team. It's tedious.

And if I were a Red Sox fan, I'd want to know WHY we have a ceiling of $130 the next time I buy my RSN card.

RhodeyYankee2638
06-15-05, 04:17 PM
I hope he realizes David Ortiz is the main problem, and he needs to trade him to the National League

NDBoston
06-15-05, 04:33 PM
That's great, but it's projected onto every conversation in regards to every team. It's tedious.

And if I were a Red Sox fan, I'd want to know WHY we have a ceiling of $130 the next time I buy my RSN card.


Based on the fact the Red Sox have the #2 payroll yet reside in the #6 media market, I have zero complaints, nor should any Red Sox fan IMO. Boston isn't LA or Chicago or NYC. The new owners have been incredible in generating revenue and sinking it back into the park and the players.

dartek
06-15-05, 04:41 PM
Based on the fact the Red Sox have the #2 payroll yet reside in the #6 media market, I have zero complaints, nor should any Red Sox fan IMO. Boston isn't LA or Chicago or NYC. The new owners have been incredible in generating revenue and sinking it back into the park and the players.
Agreed. Add to that the fact that the Sox just won the WS in my lifetime and I have nothing to bitch about. Well...almost(Embree) nothing.

daverave
06-15-05, 06:03 PM
Based on the fact the Red Sox have the #2 payroll yet reside in the #6 media market, I have zero complaints, nor should any Red Sox fan IMO. Boston isn't LA or Chicago or NYC. The new owners have been incredible in generating revenue and sinking it back into the park and the players.

I wonder how the size of that #6 media market is being established. Is it just the greater Boston area? IMO, the Red Sox media market encompasses virtually all of New England since they have no other ML competition there while the larger media markets are being split with two (or more) teams effectively diluting their size. How does the population of New England compare to half the population of the LA basin for example? Maybe I'll try and figure that out or maybe one of you geniuses can beat me to it. ;)

YankeePride1967
06-15-05, 06:07 PM
I wonder how the size of that #6 media market is being established. Is it just the greater Boston area? IMO, the Red Sox media market encompasses virtually all of New England since they have no other ML competition there while the larger media markets are being split with two (or more) teams effectively diluting their size. How does the population of New England compare to half the population of the LA basin for example? Maybe I'll try and figure that out or maybe one of you geniuses can beat me to it. ;)

And while the market size is unarguably the major factor in a team's ability to spend, it isn't the only one. If so, then Boston would only be able to afford the 6th highest payroll. What good is it having 100 million around if few like baseball? Conversely, if you have a market with 80 million and are in a "baseball area" they can spend more. Boston is such an area where the interest in the game of baseball is greater than their population numbers.

Euclis
06-15-05, 06:17 PM
And if I were a Red Sox fan, I'd want to know WHY we have a ceiling of $130 the next time I buy my RSN card.

Yeah, I'm pretty upset that the Red Sox only have the 2nd highest payroll in all of baseball :D

somejerk
06-15-05, 06:19 PM
And while the market size is unarguably the major factor in a team's ability to spend, it isn't the only one. If so, then Boston would only be able to afford the 6th highest payroll. What good is it having 100 million around if few like baseball? Conversely, if you have a market with 80 million and are in a "baseball area" they can spend more. Boston is such an area where the interest in the game of baseball is greater than their population numbers.

It doesn't matter how many fans there are, it is the amount of potential eye balls that advertisements are available to. If it is the 6th largest media market, it means less money paid by advertisers to the Red Sox via billboards or in commercials to NESN. Nobody would spend more than fair market value on a commerical regardless of what the program is, in regards to the TV ratings generated and the size of that market.

Pepper03
06-16-05, 07:05 AM
Nah, I wouldn't accuse Epstein of acting that way. Some Sox fans, yes -definately. The amount of obsession over what someone costs in relation to virtually every conversation about performance grates at times.

Is it an obsession, as you see it, or is it a real factor in determining who the Red Sox can bring in?

The Red Sox are by no means the Little Sisters of the Poor, but they do not have an unlimited supply of money to go out and get whoever they want.
They have the second highest payroll, right around the luxury tax level, and that seems to be a self-imposed limit. Therefore, the cost of obtaining additional players is a valid point in discussing player acquisitions.

I think the Red Sox management has done a tremendous job running the franchise, and I have no problems that they are trying to be fiscally responsible while putting together a competitive team. They are investing more money in scouting and rebuliding the farm system, things that cost money but are not as easy to recognize as player salaries.

In my opinion, if the Red Sox are to remain competitive for the long-term, they have no option except to keep on this path of eventually bringing down (or controlling) the payroll through developing home grown talent (which isn't cheap either) and staying away from long-term expensive contracts that in their judgement do no make sense, even though in the short-term those decisions may look bad (i.e. Pedro).

I fully believe the Red Sox will get the players they need to compete, and they have shown they are willing to spend the money when they feel it is justified.

Like it or not, sports isn't just about the players on the field, it is about the economics of putting the players on the field as well.

DontHateOnNumber2
06-16-05, 12:17 PM
...everyone outside of Clement has underperformed.


I never thought of it that way before, all I ever thought was that Clement was overperforming. I'm so dense!

BronxByTheBay
06-16-05, 12:21 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty upset that the Red Sox only have the 2nd highest payroll in all of baseball :D

I"d be upset that we did and started the season with David Wells as my number 2 guy in the rotation.

dartek
06-16-05, 12:25 PM
I"d be upset that we did and started the season with David Wells as my number 2 guy in the rotation.
David being number 2 was never the plan, injury's happened...I am not gonna hold that against the FO. I will hold it against god(shakes fist at god).

BronxByTheBay
06-16-05, 12:27 PM
David being number 2 was never the plan, injury's happened...I am not gonna hold that against the FO. I will hold it against god(shakes fist at god).

He wasn't? Since when? Who was slotted ahead of him in the rotation?

dartek
06-16-05, 12:31 PM
He wasn't? Since when? Who was slotted ahead of him in the rotation?
I thought it was gonna be Schilling, Clement, Wells, Wake, Arroyo/Miller .

BronxByTheBay
06-16-05, 12:33 PM
I thought it was gonna be Schilling, Clement, Wells, Wake, Arroyo/Miller .

Clement was NEVER slotted ahead of David Wells in the pre-season projections. No way. Lucky for you guys it worked out, but at the start of the season no one had any idea what Clement was gonna bring to the table making the NL/AL switch.

dartek
06-16-05, 12:35 PM
Clement was NEVER slotted ahead of David Wells in the pre-season projections. No way. Lucky for you guys it worked out, but at the start of the season no one had any idea what Clement was gonna bring to the table making the NL/AL switch.
Where might I find these projections? Apparently my memory is fading worse than I thought.

Edit-never mind I found one...I can feel the grey matter leaking slowly..slowly...

Euclis
06-16-05, 12:35 PM
I"d be upset that we did and started the season with David Wells as my number 2 guy in the rotation.

I'll go on record as saying I liked the wells signing, a lot. With the exception of his 'rehab' start, I really haven't had much to complain about. He's gotten hammered twice....the start before, and the start after his injury. Not counting those 2 starts, he has an era of about 2.97, .96 whip, 5-2 record....very good.

dartek
06-16-05, 12:41 PM
I'll go on record as saying I liked the wells signing, a lot. With the exception of his 'rehab' start, I really haven't had much to complain about. He's gotten hammered twice....the start before, and the start after his injury. Not counting those 2 starts, he has an era of about 2.97, .96 whip, 5-2 record....very good.
He has been excellent lately but I would not have slotted him in at 2...as my previous erronious post will show. Even with Clement as an unknown quantity I would have had him in the 2 slot, but they don't pay me the big bucks soooo...

CTSoxFan
06-16-05, 01:00 PM
That's great, but it's projected onto every conversation in regards to every team. It's tedious.

And if I were a Red Sox fan, I'd want to know WHY we have a ceiling of $130 the next time I buy my RSN card.

I think these are both fair points, though I will allow them some latitude on the $130 million ceiling. I'm pretty sure it's in relation to the salary cap, and their desire not to pay other ballclubs to field losing teams. Philosophically, I agree with that stance, but I fully admit I'm only going to agree with it until the day we back off a free agent because we're "up against the cap." If that's the sole (or even the primary) reason not to go after a guy, then I think it's bogus.

Of course, I have the luxury of thinking it's bogus...it's not MY money!

CTSoxFan
06-16-05, 01:06 PM
The "Wells as #2 starter" myth is not a new conversation...it has its roots in the perception that Wells was signed to "replace" Pedro as the #2 guy in the rotation. I'm too lazy to find my own posts on the subject, but my preseason rant (disagreeing with Wells being the #2 guy) was that I had Schilling, Clement, Arroyo, Wells and Wakefield in that order, with Miller hopefully ready to step into the breach if/when one occurred. I never bought into Clement being a "headcase," the alleged reason why he was a #3 or #4, and I believed (and still do) in Arroyo's talent, though God knows the recent half-dozen string of losses before yesterday challenged my belief somewhat.

Wells was positioned at #2 by some who thought he fit the role of the erstwhile "ace," and that whoever was "replacing" Pedro in that position needed to be someone with a deeper resume than Clement or Arroyo. Those are legitimate points of view, but I never bought into it, and I never saw Theo introduce Wells (literally or figuratively) as the guy who was going to form a 1-2 tandem with Schilling at the top of the rotation.

dartek
06-16-05, 01:18 PM
The "Wells as #2 starter" myth is not a new conversation...it has its roots in the perception that Wells was signed to "replace" Pedro as the #2 guy in the rotation. I'm too lazy to find my own posts on the subject, but my preseason rant (disagreeing with Wells being the #2 guy) was that I had Schilling, Clement, Arroyo, Wells and Wakefield in that order, with Miller hopefully ready to step into the breach if/when one occurred. I never bought into Clement being a "headcase," the alleged reason why he was a #3 or #4, and I believed (and still do) in Arroyo's talent, though God knows the recent half-dozen string of losses before yesterday challenged my belief somewhat.

Wells was positioned at #2 by some who thought he fit the role of the erstwhile "ace," and that whoever was "replacing" Pedro in that position needed to be someone with a deeper resume than Clement or Arroyo. Those are legitimate points of view, but I never bought into it, and I never saw Theo introduce Wells (literally or figuratively) as the guy who was going to form a 1-2 tandem with Schilling at the top of the rotation.

This was my thinking, I guess I had forgotten that no one in the media agreed with me.

somejerk
06-16-05, 06:38 PM
Clement was NEVER slotted ahead of David Wells in the pre-season projections. No way. Lucky for you guys it worked out, but at the start of the season no one had any idea what Clement was gonna bring to the table making the NL/AL switch.

Carl Pavano was slotted as the #2 and nobody had any idea how he would make the NL/AL switch. Which I think is an insult to Mike Mussina, who should have been the #2 based on his reputation and being in the system far longer. Either way it doesn't really matter, with injuries and everything the order gets messed up at some point throughout the season.

bnorris85
06-17-05, 07:12 AM
jay payton wants to be traded

http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view.bg?articleid=89760

nhyankeefan
06-17-05, 07:18 AM
jay payton wants to be traded

http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view.bg?articleid=89760

Can't really blame him, he wants to play every day and unless someone gets hurt he's the odd man out. He's a good player and would help the Yanks but there's no way in hell that trade will ever happen.

Pepper03
06-17-05, 07:25 AM
Thanks for the link-how do you do that anyway?
He came across very well for a player who wants to be traded.
If they trade him-who will be the bach-up? I have heard alot about Adam Stern, but hasn't he been hurt and is now rehabbing?
I would be very concerned if they traded him-he is a very nice insurance policy.
We already know Nixon has something wrong with him that will need off-season surgery, and Damon is banged up, and you never know when Manny will need a rest.

Pepper03
06-17-05, 07:26 AM
Can't really blame him, he wants to play every day and unless someone gets hurt he's the odd man out. He's a good player and would help the Yanks but there's no way in hell that trade will ever happen.

Sure it will, all the Yankees need to do is offer Womack, Stanton, Giambi, and anybody else they want to get rid of, and I'm sure the Red Sox would do it in a heartbeat. :P

BronxByTheBay
06-17-05, 08:45 AM
Carl Pavano was slotted as the #2 and nobody had any idea how he would make the NL/AL switch. Which I think is an insult to Mike Mussina, who should have been the #2 based on his reputation and being in the system far longer. Either way it doesn't really matter, with injuries and everything the order gets messed up at some point throughout the season.

Right. I agree that Pavano was slotted as the number 2, although I personally never saw it. Still a world of difference going into the season with Carl Pavano was your number 2 (with a guy like Moose also in the rotation) and David Wells as your number 2.

YankeePride1967
06-17-05, 08:50 AM
Clement was NEVER slotted ahead of David Wells in the pre-season projections. No way. Lucky for you guys it worked out, but at the start of the season no one had any idea what Clement was gonna bring to the table making the NL/AL switch.

Exactly, which is why Wells started that Sunday night game to open the season.

BronxByTheBay
06-17-05, 08:51 AM
The "Wells as #2 starter" myth is not a new conversation...it has its roots in the perception that Wells was signed to "replace" Pedro as the #2 guy in the rotation.

It's not a "myth" and there was a very good reason for that perception. Your rotation had just lost Pedro and Lowe (the latter not being THAT big a deal, granted). You lost out on the Pavano sweepstakes, so as a backup David Wells was signed. Then Clement. Going into the season, looking at your rotation and considering what was lost, seeing David Wells as the number 2 is not a far-fetched proposition.

If the ALCS were to begin the first week in April, would Wells be pitching game 3 or 4? Well, Terry Francona answered that question - he'd be pitching game 1 because your ace was injured. That's not just happenstance that Wells was put on the mound on a nationally televised game against the Yankees to start the season. It wasn't luck of the draw. Have things changed since then? Sure, some for the better some for the worse. Because of my team's suckage, I haven't followed the Sox as closely as normal. Correct me if I'm wrong but thus far: Wells has been inconsistant, Arroyo has sucked, Clement's been great, Wakefield has sucked/been okay? So yeah...as of now, Clement lines up as the number 2 guy. But that's not what the Sox FO/manager had in mind to start the season.

So I stand by my original point. If I'm a Red Sox fan, yes - I'd like to ask our FO why are we starting a season in which we defend our first world championship in 86 years and the best we have to offer is David Wells.

UncleSam
06-17-05, 09:20 AM
Right. I agree that Pavano was slotted as the number 2, although I personally never saw it. Still a world of difference going into the season with Carl Pavano was your number 2 (with a guy like Moose also in the rotation) and David Wells as your number 2.

You're right, because Wells continues to be a better pitcher.

tdel23
06-17-05, 09:23 AM
It could be related to the fact that most Red Sox fans realize the team won't go over 130 million and look to play GM and how to get the best players in while still staying under the number.

I'm guilty of playing GM all the time. I'm already trying to figure out who's going to be available for the bulpen next year and at what $$ since the only starter I like will go to the Yankees IMO (Burnett).

Then again, I'm a serious basebal geek. :lol:

who among us isn't a baseball geek :)

BronxByTheBay
06-17-05, 09:28 AM
You're right, because Wells continues to be a better pitcher.

Ahhh, yes. We can't have a legit discussion between baseball fans without uncletroll popping in to gum up the works.

Listen, sparky, my contention isn't about the Red Sox "sucking" or "we have the better rotation, NYAH NYAH". I was responding to CT's assertion that Wells wasn't slotted as the number 2 guy in the Sox rotation to begin the year.

Now retreat back under your bridge and let the adults talk.

UncleSam
06-17-05, 09:43 AM
Ahhh, yes. We can't have a legit discussion between baseball fans without uncletroll popping in to gum up the works.

Listen, sparky, my contention isn't about the Red Sox "sucking" or "we have the better rotation, NYAH NYAH". I was responding to CT's assertion that Wells wasn't slotted as the number 2 guy in the Sox rotation to begin the year.

Now retreat back under your bridge and let the adults talk.

So, now it's trolling to say that Wells is better than Pavano? If so, the standards have really fallen.

Also, the post I responded to clearly stated that Pavano was a better #2 than Wells was, despite your protests to the contrary.

BronxByTheBay
06-17-05, 10:11 AM
So, now it's trolling to say that Wells is better than Pavano? If so, the standards have really fallen.

Also, the post I responded to clearly stated that Pavano was a better #2 than Wells was, despite your protests to the contrary.

Not one person participating in this conversation was discussing one player being better than the other. We were discussing pre-season projections vis a vis team spending.

You're attempts to bait are completely transparent, as they are virtually every time you pull this crap.

Incidentally, your own GM projected Pavano ahead of David Wells prior to the season. OH right - but that wasn't your point. Your point is up until now Wells has been better than Pavano - an assertion no one had made in opposition. Grow up. Not all conversations between Sox fans and Yankee fans requires argument.

UncleSam
06-17-05, 10:33 AM
Not one person participating in this conversation was discussing one player being better than the other. We were discussing pre-season projections vis a vis team spending.

You're attempts to bait are completely transparent, as they are virtually every time you pull this crap.

Incidentally, your own GM projected Pavano ahead of David Wells prior to the season. OH right - but that wasn't your point. Your point is up until now Wells has been better than Pavano - an assertion no one had made in opposition. Grow up. Not all conversations between Sox fans and Yankee fans requires argument.

I agree. I think they probably had Wells penciled in as the #2, but definitely expected Clement to have more upside. Clearly, Clement has established himself as the Sox #1 until a healthy Schilling returns and only recently has Wells showed the stuff of a #2.

BTW, you can call it baiting, but I was just sticking up for Wells, who everyone likes to bash on this board.

Archer1979
06-17-05, 10:36 AM
...but I was just sticking up for Wells, who everyone likes to bash on this board.

:Archer raises his hand:

BronxByTheBay
06-17-05, 10:40 AM
I agree. I think they probably had Wells penciled in as the #2, but definitely expected Clement to have more upside. Clearly, Clement has established himself as the Sox #1 until a healthy Schilling returns and only recently has Wells showed the stuff of a #2.

BTW, you can call it baiting, but I was just sticking up for Wells, who everyone likes to bash on this board.

It's baiting if it has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

But if you want to say you misread or jumped the gun, then I have no reason not to take you at your word. I apologize for the troll tag.

F*cking Sox fans... ;)

UncleSam
06-17-05, 11:13 AM
It's baiting if it has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

But if you want to say you misread or jumped the gun, then I have no reason not to take you at your word. I apologize for the troll tag.

F*cking Sox fans... ;)

Seriously, I was just sticking up for the fat man. He's a real easy target for all of us, but I still think when he's on, he's as good as anyone out there. Despite his stumbles this year, in his last four starts against the Yanks, Angels, Cards and Reds, he's pitched 30.1 innings and given up 6 ER (1.78 ERA) on just 20 hits and 2 walks while striking out 13. I know his continued health is no guarantee, but anyone who can put up those numbers against those teams can be the Sox #2 any day. He's not perfect, but I'll take him.

Bronson'sCornrows
06-17-05, 11:47 AM
...Because of my team's suckage, I haven't followed the Sox as closely as normal. Correct me if I'm wrong but thus far: Wells has been inconsistant, Arroyo has sucked, Clement's been great, Wakefield has sucked/been okay?

Not quite. Allow me to fill you in.

Wells- Inconsistent thus far, but progressing. He has had a few excellent starts, a few terrible starts, and in between mostly good and average starts. His ERA right now is 4.54, so his excellence and horridness thus far have just about cancelled each other out. Based on how he has looked his last couple of starts, I think it's reasonable to expect him to do better throughout the year, probably finishing the season with an ERA slighly less than 4 and probably winning between 13-17 games. Of course, this is assuming he stays healthy throughout the rest of the season.

Clement- Very good thus far. It's only fair to mention that his second to last start, the Cardinals offense destroyed him. Of course, it's also fair to note that his very last start he looked like he did the rest of the season, giving up 3ER in 8IP. As long as he stays healthy, I think it's fair to assume that he will finish the season with an ERA around 3.50 and will probably be the Sox only 20 game winner this year.

Arroyo- Terribly inconsistent. Arroyo has been even more inconsistent than Wells. Like Wells, he has a few excellent starts as well as a few horrible starts under his belt, but unlike Wells, Arroyo doesn't have an injury that can be pinpointed as the cause. Because of this, I don't see any way to project how Arroyo could finish the season. His last two starts have each been terrible and excellent, almost as if to drive the point home as to how Arroyo can look on any given start. Despite his overwhelming inconsistency, I have a lot of confidence in the guy. I expect him to finish with an ERA slightly less than four and with around 15 wins, but unlike my projections of Wells and Clement this one is hardly reasonable. It is instead what I think the guy is capable of based on having seen him pitch enough times coupled with my own biased confidence in him.

Wakefield- Inconsistent as usual. You don't really know what you are getting from the guy on any given start, but since he added the curveball to his repertoire, he hasn't had a bad year and usually has an average to above average year. Just going on his history, I'd expect him to finish with an ERA very close to the league average, and at least 12 wins with the Sox offense behind him. His numbers so far this year practically lend themselves to my projection.

Miller- Pretty good. His ERA on the season certainly wouldn't indicate that, but it's only bloated because of one eye-poppingly bad start against Toronto a few weeks ago. Without that start, his ERA would be 3.64. In his 3 starts since then, he is 1-1 with an ERA of 3.99 in 20.1IP. It would only be fair to mention, though, that his very last start was pretty bad- he surrendered 5ER in 7IP at Wrigley. It's still easy to see that outside of the Toronto start (even including his bad last start), Miller has been solid. I think it's fair to say that if he stays healthy, he should be solid for the Sox. I wasn't expecting him to finish the year with an ERA of 3.50 anyway, so as long as he finishes significantly better than the league average (say, around 4.15?), I'll be happy, and I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that he'll be able to do that. There's no doubt this projection has tinges of bias, but is certainly not unreasonable.

It might be a good idea to ask another Sox fan what they think of my opinions and amateur projections to get a different perspective from somebody else who has seen a lot of this staff.

BronxByTheBay
06-17-05, 11:57 AM
It might be a good idea to ask another Sox fan what they think of my opinions and amateur projections to get a different perspective from somebody else who has seen a lot of this staff.

Thanks for the run-down. Interesting stuff. I would have bet prior to the season that Arroyo would blossom this year instead of Clement. Clement has good stuff, but I never believed he would put it together - let alone in the AL.

Bronson'sCornrows
06-17-05, 12:22 PM
Thanks for the run-down. Interesting stuff. I would have bet prior to the season that Arroyo would blossom this year instead of Clement. Clement has good stuff, but I never believed he would put it together - let alone in the AL.

Actually, I felt the same way. I thought for sure this was going to be Arroyo's breakout year (ERA ~ 3.60, 18 wins). Actually, it still can be if he gets his ................ together, I guess we'll see. If you told me one of those two was going to put it all together this year, I'd have immediately thought Arroyo.

Archer1979
06-17-05, 12:28 PM
Actually, I felt the same way. I thought for sure this was going to be Arroyo's breakout year (ERA ~ 3.60, 18 wins). Actually, it still can be if he gets his ................ together, I guess we'll see. If you told me one of those two was going to put it all together this year, I'd have immediately thought Arroyo.

Keep in mind that a bad bullpen can affect the starter's approach to a game. And this year's bullpen has been bad.

BronxByTheBay
06-17-05, 12:28 PM
Actually, I felt the same way. I thought for sure this was going to be Arroyo's breakout year (ERA ~ 3.60, 18 wins). Actually, it still can be if he gets his ................ together, I guess we'll see. If you told me one of those two was going to put it all together this year, I'd have immediately thought Arroyo.

Well, here's hoping he doesn't. ;) :D

ieddyi
06-17-05, 12:48 PM
Actually, I felt the same way. I thought for sure this was going to be Arroyo's breakout year (ERA ~ 3.60, 18 wins). Actually, it still can be if he gets his ................ together, I guess we'll see. If you told me one of those two was going to put it all together this year, I'd have immediately thought Arroyo.


IT seems teams are loading the lineups with lefties against him with good results. If he doens't get better there hard to imagine him getting it together

pjfan
06-17-05, 01:05 PM
it was encouraging to see Bronson have a good outing last time out... granted, it was against the Reds, but they do have some power hitting lefties,and he kept them in the park, so it was OK

JWHIII
06-17-05, 01:06 PM
I saw somewhere that Wake was 0-4 with an 8.50 ERA during Mirabelli's absence. He has been prone to strecthes like that in the past regardless who's catching, but Doug's stint on the DL may have affected his comfort level out on the mound

Euclis
06-17-05, 01:22 PM
Actually, I felt the same way. I thought for sure this was going to be Arroyo's breakout year (ERA ~ 3.60, 18 wins). Actually, it still can be if he gets his ................ together, I guess we'll see. If you told me one of those two was going to put it all together this year, I'd have immediately thought Arroyo.

For whatever reason, Arroyo's k/9 dropped a lot this year.

2004: 7.15
2005: 5.60

He is facing a lot more lefties this year, and its affecting him.

Lefties faced, ops:
2004: 387, .768
2005: 205, .860

Righties faced, ops:
2004: 348, .656
2005: 124, .526

Arroyo is better against righties and worst against lefties this year. I don't know why he is better against righties, his k's against them are down. He has only given up 1 HR all year to righties, as opposed to 7 last year. He probably can't keep it up. If he doesn't start striking more people out, he will be in trouble. In 13 starts this year, he's gone over 5 k's just twice. Last year, in 29 starts, he went over 5 k's ten times.