Author Topic: Lackey to the Red Sox  (Read 623 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37221
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Lackey to the Red Sox
« Topic Start: December 14, 2009, 06:45:42 PM »
Says ESPN Crawl.

Link forthcoming.

Cue salary cap outrage (and count me in).

Offline Nathan

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 10713
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37221
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #2: December 14, 2009, 06:46:50 PM »

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8456
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #3: December 14, 2009, 07:38:02 PM »
[sf]ALREADY POSTED YOU LAZY freakING BASTARD!!!!

http://74.208.67.155/index.php/topic,15936.msg497625.html#msg497625

LOOK AROUND BEFORE POSTING AGAIN NEW GUY (AND I PROCEED TO IGNORE THE POST COUNT BECAUSE IT IS A FACT IN MY MIND THAT YOU ARE A NEWB AND I SHOULD SHUT YOU DOWN TO MAKE MYSELF LOOK GOOD)[/sf]

:D

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37221
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #4: December 14, 2009, 11:07:14 PM »
Best part is the ip address in the link.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 19511
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #5: December 15, 2009, 08:36:55 AM »
PANATS - I'll be curious where they come out in terms of payroll.  They have not been #2 in payroll the past two years.  I'm pretty sure they have been around 4th, but have not looked at the end of the season records.  Their AAV (which I think is used for luxury tax purposes) has been running higher than their actual payroll because Lester, Youkilis, and Pedroia have backloaded contracts.  The Cameron signing would be cheap, as is the Scutaro signing.  My guess is they do not exceed the tax threshold but end up over $140m on opening day (from <$130m last year).  that's still about $20 - 25m below theri 2007 payroll.

By the way, if you want to look at a team that is ramping up its payroll, check out Philadelphia.  They are going to end up increasing their payroll nearly 50% from opening day 2008 to opening day 2010.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 17609
  • Let's Do This
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #6: December 15, 2009, 09:01:11 AM »
PANATS - I'll be curious where they come out in terms of payroll.  They have not been #2 in payroll the past two years.  I'm pretty sure they have been around 4th, but have not looked at the end of the season records.  Their AAV (which I think is used for luxury tax purposes) has been running higher than their actual payroll because Lester, Youkilis, and Pedroia have backloaded contracts.  The Cameron signing would be cheap, as is the Scutaro signing.  My guess is they do not exceed the tax threshold but end up over $140m on opening day (from <$130m last year).  that's still about $20 - 25m below theri 2007 payroll.

By the way, if you want to look at a team that is ramping up its payroll, check out Philadelphia.  They are going to end up increasing their payroll nearly 50% from opening day 2008 to opening day 2010.

I'm starting to hate the Red Sox less and less in large part because what JCA is saying here is true.  The Sox were behind the Yankees, Mets, Phillies and Angels (I think) last year and I want to say there were a couple of other teams really close to Boston to where the difference was nominal.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 19511
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #7: December 15, 2009, 09:08:00 AM »
Frankly, there are plenty of reasons  to hate the Red Sox.  I just call people out on the budget stuff quite a bit because (1) they don't have quite the significant natural advantage that they are made out to have, and (2) directionally, they have been pulling back a bit on spending.

Hate the front runners, hate the smugness of their number crunchers, hate the way they are shoved down your throat by the media (on that, I agree with you), but I wish the Lerners had a strategy for team and market development that can get the most out of this market. 

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 17609
  • Let's Do This
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #8: December 15, 2009, 09:09:32 AM »
Hate the front runners, hate the smugness of their number crunchers, hate the way they are shoved down your throat by the media (on that, I agree with you), but I wish the Lerners had a strategy for team and market development that can get the most out of this market. 

+1

Though it does help to have 100+ years of history and tradition to build on.   ;)

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17469
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #9: December 15, 2009, 09:14:51 AM »
+1

Though it does help to have 100+ years of history and tradition to build on.   ;)

Didn't Honey Fitz get elected by singing Tessie at every bar in Boston?

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37221
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #10: December 15, 2009, 10:29:33 AM »
Would someone care to make a bar chart of the significant FA signings over the last 3 seasons by team? They can keep their payroll down by not overpaying for crappy veterans and still suck up all the decent talent.

Did the Yankees really need Granderson? Do the Sox need NJ? If a guy is any good at all, he's got at least a 50% of ending up on one of those two teams.

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8456
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #11: December 15, 2009, 11:02:53 AM »
Sox have great management, I just don't like the media/fans. And the whole big market thing is blatantly false. New York, Chicago, LA are big markets. Boston is in the next tier, with like Baltimore/DC (sry), Miami, St. Louis/Kansas City, SF/Oakland, Seattle, etc. True, Red Sox have New England, but its really not that many people.. states like Vermont and Rhode Island are tiny. And Connecticut has a lot of Yankees fans.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 17609
  • Let's Do This
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #12: December 15, 2009, 11:04:46 AM »
Did the Yankees really need Granderson? Do the Sox need NJ? If a guy is any good at all, he's got at least a 50% of ending up on one of those two teams.

No.  Neither team really NEEDS the players you listed, but the fact is that the Yankees upgraded so you're saying the Sox shouldn't bother to try to compete with a team in their own division?  Since the Phillies just traded for the best pitcher onthe planet, should the Braves just give up?  Why should we bother? 

The Red Sox are doing everything they can to compete with the best teams in their division.  We would want the Nats to do the exact same thing.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 14516
  • Nats hitters = Maggie Lizer
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #13: December 15, 2009, 03:23:36 PM »
Didn't Honey Fitz get elected by singing Tessie at every bar in Boston?
:rofl: That's a pretty awesome campaign strategy.

Offline imref

  • Posts: 18843
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #14: December 15, 2009, 06:00:47 PM »
Maybe the Orioles will be the Tampa of next year?  Maybe their amazing young offense will take the next step?  Maybe their young pitching will improve?  Maybe they get Gregg back to close?

And maybe they play the Nats in the world series?

Offline Nathan

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 10713
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: Lackey to the Red Sox
« Reply #15: December 15, 2009, 06:31:44 PM »
Maybe the Orioles will be the Tampa of next year?  Maybe their amazing young offense will take the next step?  Maybe their young pitching will improve?  Maybe they get Gregg back to close?

And maybe they play the Nats in the world series?
Nats / Os WS and 'Skins / Ravens Superbowl.