A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    We are a big market team, consistently in contention. We are just not the type of team which would even try to trade Ellsbury 2 years from the end of his contract, after such a tremendous year. I really don't get all the trade ellsbury or let's see what we can get for Ellsbury comments. I understand comments like "let's see what we can get for everyone" type comments which i think is more what Moon might mean but to single out Ellsbury as a trade target just seems unlikely to me. Especially while we are probably trying to find another OF as it is and we really do not have another good lead off option. We want players like Ellsbury, guys in their absolute prime, in the lineup while we  are optimized to win. And after all the moves made recently we should be optimized to win now.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    From everything I'm seeing, we are adding Lavarnway to the 2012 lineup one way or the other. What if the guy actually meets his offensive projections? 34 HR last year in around 475 AB with around a .290 average, .370-.380 OBP should conservatively project into a 25 HR / .270 / .335 OBP hitter for the Sox. That would be a major offensive upgrade at the catcher position and even project to be the starting level guy in some scenarios by year end.

    I know people will say it is way premature to even be discussing him in the context of Fisk, but just to give it some perspective at least, the guy already has way better offensive numbers than Fisk ever produced in the minors. Across the board. Definitely not saying he will approach Fisk's career but you know what, it's possible he will have some Fiskian level years and might even put up better numbers than Fisk offensively during his prime. Fisk stuck around forever so it's hard to top that career but I said the same sorts of things about Ellsbury years ago and those panned out exactly on target. In other words Ellsbury would be hard pressed to top Damon's career as he started later but that he could put up similar numbers if he stayed healthy in the years he did play.

    I'm just saying that according to the numbers, Lavarnway will potentially be a special offensive force for a catcher if he develops as the numbers project.

    He pulls his jersey like Fisk used to when he is up to bat. He runs the bases with the same gait as Fisk. He seems to have a similar swing and approach as Fisk to a degree at the plate. I'm sorry. He reminds me of Fisk.

    Now come all the insults ...etc. I'm just stating that he looks to be potentially a very special player and a game changer if he actually pans out. Imagine if he actually pans out? That would be a HUGE development for this team.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    I find it very interesting that the last 2 catchers who hit over 30 HR in AAA ( besides Lavarnway ) were Arencibio of Toronto who hit 23 HR last year in his rookie year and Mike Napoli. The last guy before those 2 was in 1995. 

    And Lavarnway had better overall minor league numbers than both of them offensively. No matter how you look at Lavarnway from an offensive perspective, he looks to be a potential future stud. And as a Yale guy I just think it is likely he will be fine from a game management perspective quite soon.

    If we are going to be enthusiastic about any player from the Redsox farm, it should be Lavarnway IMO. I know Bogaerts is down there with a huge HR percentage playing age advanced. There are other great prospects down there but Lavarnway has consistently produced offensively and by all accounts is repaidly improving defensively. 

    Imagine if he actually continues to develop as he has so far. He would be one of the top catchers in the game. And we would have him available for 6 years if we chose to.

    No way I would trade this guy at this time.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Compare Lavarnway to Arencibio's minor league numbers:


    And then Napoli's"


    Lavarnway has way better minor league numbers than both of them.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Lavarnway had a wRC+ of 171 last year in Pawtucket. Amazing.

    The best thing about Lavarnway has been his overall run production.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    He slots well as an eventual #5 or 6 hitter. From a projection perspective.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Posts: 9144
    First: 11/17/2008
    Last: 10/28/2011
    You know, sometimes it's best to just not say anything! No amount of data. No amount of proof. It's gonna get completely ignored, distorted, tap danced around...etc.


    Precisely how I felt after posting this:

    If you were fully  aware of venue issues, you'd know why the A's pitchers have league-leading numbers.
    Since 2003, this "tremendous" A's pitching staff has an ERA of 6.00 in Boston.
    Facing the RedSox in Oakland, it's 3.58. Get it? That's a 2 & 1/2 run disparity.
    Was Young's "management performance" at play here also?}

    Here's more:

    {Pitching cornerstones PO contenders. The A's have finished last or 2nd to last 4 of the last 5 years. That proves their pitching numbers are venue driven.

    In 2010, their best year in the last 5, they finished 81-81.
    Home: 3.04 ERA    1.162 WHIP     .629 OPP OPS
    Road: 4.15 ERA    1.397 WHIP    .756 OPP OPS}.




    Of course it's no fluke that it's existed 7 years. Likely longer.
    It's because of where they play and who they play.

    Here are the 2011 A's pitching numbers...
    without Young:
    Home 3.18 ERA  1.229 WHIP  OPP OPS .650
    Away: 4.18 ERA  1.398 WHIP  OPP OPS .740

    119 of the A's 162 games (73%) are played in Oakland/CA/Seattle: ALL PITCHING VENUES! Boston plays 117 of 162 games in Fenway/NY/Toronto: ALL HITTING VENUES.

    Here's the RedSox H/A this year:
    Home: 4.48 ERA  1.380 WHIP  OPP OPS  .741
    Away: 3.90 ERA  1.233 WHIP  OPP OPS  .684

    Here's the A's pitching in Boston/Toronto/NY this year: 118 ER in 158.6 IP 6.07 ERA. Repeat:
    6.07 ERA.

    The proper way to measure this criteria is away from home venue and taking into consideration the unbalanced schedule and the level of comp. faced. Rating the A's staff against the rest of the league at face value is as faulty as rating the RedSox hitting against the rest of the league.

    In other words, if the A's and the RedSox switched divisions and ball parks, Boston's pitching would be ranked number one, and The A'sa staff would be lower tier. At the same time, Boston would not lead the league in hitting, and the A's hitting would be ranked much, much higher than it is now.

    That is why over the last 8 years - seen as the RedSox juggernaut hitting years, both the A's and the M's hitting at Fenway have clearly outhit Boston hitting in Oakland and Seattle.


    Away from home venue, Boston clearly had the better pitching staff, despite the injuries and playing in more hitting venues. Where were they ranked???



    Did you address the points? No. Why not? I'll let you answer it:

    Why have a discussion with someone who in their mind is incapable of being wrong ever?

    I addressed your points but you ignored mine. You carry Softlaw baggage.



    His team leading the league in ERA over the entire 7 years he was with Oakland, when they constantly did it with rookies and 2-3 year veterans.


    What was the A's win-loss record during Young's years? Had the pitching staff been legit - able to cut it in hitting venues - the A's would have contended in all those 7 years.
    Their best record in the last 5 years: 81-81. My my my, that's some pitching staff.


    No doubt the venue was a huge factor

    Pity you don't acknowledge how huge.

    but nonetheless he was the BEST statistical pitching coach in the AL during that time also.


    This is why you carry softlaw baggage. You cling to such facts until they become UR anchor. Break down the numbers and see them true.

    AGONE was a .265-.270 hitter hitting in Petco.
    These are the facts.
    Is he a .265 - .272 hitter hitting in Fenway? He now hits .347 in Fenway - this coming off shoulder surgery. Did he become superman on the flight from SD to Boston?

    Both are statistical facts
    .
    Both are venue enhanced.

    When a pitching staff plays in pitching venues, the numbers will reflect it.
    If you really fully aware of venue affect,
    we wouldn't be discussing this.

    If you wish to think the A's really had the #1 pitching staff over the last 7 years, good luck.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Sure I agree... I won't be upset. I saw the writing on the wall the minute they brought in Crawford. Too bad they had not just offered Crawford the same rate for 4 years, they probably still would have landed him.
    Posted by BurritoT[/QUOTE]

    No chance Crawford would have taken a deal like that. Especially after what Werth got.  The Angels offer to Crawford was 6 years 108 million wasn't it?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]We are a big market team, consistently in contention. We are just not the type of team which would even try to trade Ellsbury 2 years from the end of his contract, after such a tremendous year. I really don't get all the trade ellsbury or let's see what we can get for Ellsbury comments. I understand comments like "let's see what we can get for everyone" type comments which i think is more what Moon might mean but to single out Ellsbury as a trade target just seems unlikely to me. Especially while we are probably trying to find another OF as it is and we really do not have another good lead off option. We want players like Ellsbury, guys in their absolute prime, in the lineup while we  are optimized to win. And after all the moves made recently we should be optimized to win now.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    I don't think many people here are saying Boston will trade Jacoby, but are just saying we should. You are right, I am not saying trade Jacoby, but I do think any player can and should be traded if we can get better return than their worth. I do think Jacoby is somewhat of a unique case, in that we pretty much know, we will not extend or re-sign him after 2013. I've never remembered feeling this way about a player we clearly want to keep. Again, it all goes back to the "crippling" aspect of the CC deal.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : No chance Crawford would have taken a deal like that. Especially after what Werth got.  The Angels offer to Crawford was 6 years 108 million wasn't it?
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]


    I believe so, but I gues that means we may have gotten CC for $110M/6 and saved $32M. Still bad, but not as bad.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Um, the 16 run game by the Cards was caught by Torrealba, not Napoli. The games Napoli has caught, the Cards average 1.5 runs. Got that? Must be because he can't call a game, right? Small sample, so it's luck, right? Duh,the Rangers have done very well with Napoli behind the plate this season, with only one passed ball and throwing out 36% of runners in 61 regular season games.


    What's it after tonight's 8 ER's? Small sample. Duh.


    Wish the Sox had a catcher with those numbers behind and at the plate.
    Posted by GhostofTito


    Yeah. The team would experience a perennial September of 2011 if the staff did as well.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : I don't think many people here are saying Boston will trade Jacoby, but are just saying we should. You are right, I am not saying trade Jacoby, but I do think any player can and should be traded if we can get better return than their worth. I do think Jacoby is somewhat of a unique case, in that we pretty much know, we will not extend or re-sign him after 2013. I've never remembered feeling this way about a player we clearly want to keep. Again, it all goes back to the "crippling" aspect of the CC deal.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Not just the CC deal, but the breakout year by Ellsbury, which vastly exceeded everyone's expectations, and who he has as an agent.  I think the Ellsbury situation would be problematic even if we didn't sign CC.  I also have this strong suspicion that Ellsbury is going to end up with a contract that some team is going to regret.  
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Should be an interesting winter. When new players are acquired, it's good to keep in mind...

    AGONE was a .265-.270 hitter hitting in Petco. These are the facts.
    He hit .347 in Fenway - this coming off shoulder surgery. Did he become superman on the flight from SD to Boston?

    Think Lackey. Think AGONE. Think venue affect.


    Have a nice winter folks. It's that time.
    It's...Post time!!!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    So long harness. Check in from time to time. Good luck on the horses.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Should be an interesting winter. When new players are acquired, it's good to keep in mind... AGONE was a .265-.270 hitter hitting in Petco. These are the facts. He hit .347 in Fenway - this coming off shoulder surgery. Did he become superman on the flight from SD to Boston? Think Lackey. Think AGONE. Think venue affect. Have a nice winter folks. It's that time. It's... Post time!!!
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Have a nice winter yourself harness, and good luck with your equine pursuits.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    m
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Yes harness, just be back to accept your loss on our bet... enjoy the Autumn.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]Boomerangsdotcom Posts: 9144 First: 11/17/2008 Last: 10/28/2011 a77b66929b9c7d3f14e95c916675ce99 You know, sometimes it's best to just not say anything! No amount of data. No amount of proof. It's gonna get completely ignored, distorted, tap danced around...etc. Precisely how I felt after posting this: If you were fully   aware of venue issues, you'd know why the A's pitchers have league-leading numbers. Since 2003, this " tremendous " A's pitching staff has an ERA of 6.00 in Boston. Facing the RedSox in Oakland, it's 3.58. Get it? That's a 2 & 1/2 run disparity. Was Young's "management performance" at play here also?} Here's more: {Pitching cornerstones PO contenders. The A's have finished last or 2nd to last 4 of the last 5 years. That proves their pitching numbers are venue driven. In 2010, their best year in the last 5, they finished 81-81. Home: 3.04 ERA    1.162 WHIP     .629 OPP OPS Road: 4.15 ERA    1.397 WHIP    .756 OPP OPS}. Of course it's no fluke that it's existed 7 years. Likely longer. It's because of where they play and who they play. Here are the 2011 A's pitching numbers... without Young: Home 3.18 ERA  1.229 WHIP  OPP OPS .650 Away: 4.18 ERA  1.398 WHIP  OPP OPS .740 119 of the A's 162 games (73%) are played in Oakland/CA/Seattle: ALL PITCHING VENUES! Boston plays 117 of 162 games in Fenway/NY/Toronto: ALL HITTING VENUES. Here's the RedSox H/A this year: Home: 4.48 ERA  1.380 WHIP  OPP OPS  .741 Away: 3.90 ERA  1.233 WHIP  OPP OPS  .684 Here's the A's pitching in Boston/Toronto/NY this year: 118 ER in 158.6 IP 6.07 ERA. Repeat: 6.07 ERA. The proper way to measure this criteria is away from home venue and taking into consideration the unbalanced schedule and the level of comp. faced. Rating the A's staff against the rest of the league at face value is as faulty as rating the RedSox hitting against the rest of the league. In other words, if the A's and the RedSox switched divisions and ball parks, Boston's pitching would be ranked number one, and The A'sa staff would be lower tier. At the same time, Boston would not lead the league in hitting, and the A's hitting would be ranked much, much higher than it is now. That is why over the last 8 years - seen as the RedSox juggernaut hitting years, both the A's and the M's hitting at Fenway have clearly outhit Boston hitting in Oakland and Seattle. Away from home venue, Boston clearly had the better pitching staff, despite the injuries and playing in more hitting venues. Where were they ranked??? Did you address the points? No. Why not? I'll let you answer it: Why have a discussion with someone who in their mind is incapable of being wrong ever? I addressed your points but you ignored mine. You carry Softlaw baggage. His team leading the league in ERA over the entire 7 years he was with Oakland, when they constantly did it with rookies and 2-3 year veterans. What was the A's win-loss record during Young's years? Had the pitching staff been legit - able to cut it in hitting venues - the A's would have contended in all those 7 years. Their best record in the last 5 years: 81-81. My my my, that's some pitching staff. No doubt the venue was a huge factor Pity you don't acknowledge how huge. but nonetheless he was the BEST statistical pitching coach in the AL during that time also. This is why you carry softlaw baggage. You cling to such facts until they become UR anchor. Break down the numbers and see them true. AGONE was a .265-.270 hitter hitting in Petco. These are the facts. Is he a .265 - .272 hitter hitting in Fenway? He now hits .347 in Fenway - this coming off shoulder surgery. Did he become superman on the flight from SD to Boston? Both are statistical facts . Both are venue enhanced. When a pitching staff plays in pitching venues, the numbers will reflect it. If you really fully aware of venue affect, we wouldn't be discussing this. If you wish to think the A's really had the #1 pitching staff over the last 7 years, good luck.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    You are right about one thing harness. I did completely ignore the above post. Completely after the first paragraph. You are hopeless.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I : No chance Crawford would have taken a deal like that. Especially after what Werth got.  The Angels offer to Crawford was 6 years 108 million wasn't it?
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut[/QUOTE]


    You are right, I totally forgot about the Angels. My bad.  The amount per year is not nearly a problem as the years... I hope the heck he can pull himself back up in 2012.  I know that if Elles moves on in a year or two and Carl still is sub-par it will get really nasty.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    In Response to Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I:
    [QUOTE]"I feel strong now, perhaps I will go outside and scream at old ladies and kick their poodles.  I could be the Soi Bully of Bangkok." BurritoT Posts: 5788 First: 9/29/2009 Last: 10/28/201  "Yes Idiots is a child, you are right. Had I been bright enough to remember that children can post here as well as adults, and had I known Idiots was 14 I would never have said a word to it . Idiots just admit your 7 or 14 or whatever and I will apologise, if you are an actual adult than I think you know where you can go. I am starting to think Idiot's is  smiley-beni 's son, the creepy photo one. That is scary." BurritoT Posts: 5788 First: 9/29/2009 Last: 10/28/201 "Actually the only ones talking about being "bullied" is Idiots, OurMan, and Bald-Predictions. 3 out of 500 is not so bad.  People in the minority often claim to be the victims." BurritoT Posts: 5788 First: 9/29/2009 Last: 10/28/201 "I hate the cut and paste/youtube stuff but I may as well throw one out there. I googled " 2004Idiots " and this is what came up - It explains everything and I think my part in this thread is officially over. No need to prolong banter with a sap." BurritoT Posts: 5788 First: 9/29/2009 Last: 10/28/201
    Posted by 2004Idiots[/QUOTE]

    C'mon dog.  Do you have to turn every thread into a sandbox?  No one really wants to read this nonsense little spar you've got going.  I don't even know or care what it is about.  But it is hard, because, outside of this, I want to hear what you have to say about the Red Sox and baseball in general.  So, I can't put you on ignore.  Can you let it go?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    The author of these circle jerk threads is the king of small brained sample sizes.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Reposted and adjusted:

    Here is how I look at the budget next year and what choices we may have...

    The arbs:

    Ellsbury $2.4M > ? (Arb year 2 of 3)
    Albers    $875K > ? (Arb 3 of 4)
    Salty      $750K > ? (Arb 1 of 3)
    Aceves  $650K > ? (Arb 1 of 3)
    Bard       $505K > ? (Arb 1 of 4)
    DMac      $470K > ? (Arb 1 of 4)  Maybe Theo lets him walk or trades him.
    Lowrie    $450K > ? (Arb 1 of 3)
    Morales $424K > ? (Arb 1 of 3) 

    My guess is we keep all and we add about $10M to the 2011  budget here.

    There are option players:
    Scutaro  $6M club option/$3M player option ($1.5M buy out)
    Wheeler $3M club option (guaranteed if 65 games pitched reached)
    A. Miller  $3m club option ? (some gray area here)

    Assume we let all of them go for now, just to see what is leftover, and we can revisit bringing them back later. 

    We save about $12.5M minus the $1.5M buyout for a savings of about $11M.

    Then, there are FreeAgents:
    JD Drew    $14M  
    Ortiz          $12.5M
    Papelbon  $10.33M
    Varitek      $2M
    Wakefield $2M
    Bedard      $1M

    Let's wipe the slate clean just for argument's sake. We save a total of $42M.

    Add the losses of Cameron and Reyes: save about $8M.

    I am not sure about the Adrian Gonzalez deal. I think because it was signed after day one, his salary did not count on this year's budget, but his average yearly salary from 2012 to 2018 will be counted starting next year.  The Sox also extended Buch at about $8.5M per year. That's about $8M more than this year. That's an added cost of $23.5M from the 2011 budget.

    The pre-decision breakdown comes to  


    about $28M 


    to spend on filling all the holes from all the players 


    who had options or are FAs.


    Here are some possible in house solutions, if we decide not to bring some guys back:

    If Paps walks: Closer: (Bard? Jenks? Then, we'll need more set up men.) 
    If Papi walks: DH: Lavarnway and or Youk (Lowrie/Aviles/Middlebrooks at 3B)
    Drew will walk: RF: (Reddick, Kalish, DMac)
    If we lose Wakefield/Bedard: SP (Doubront, Weiland, and "Wally")
    If VTek walks: C (Lavarnway)
    If Wheeler walks: RP:  (Doubront, Bowden )

    I do think we will "go light" at one of these positions.

    That leaves this as the framework to work with...

    C: Salty (Lavarnway from DH)
    1B: AGon
    2B: Pedey
    3B: Youk
    SS: Aviles/Lowrie/Iglesias
    LF: Craw/DMac
    CF: Ells
    RF: Reddick/Kalish
    DH: Lavarnway or (Youk from 3B)

    SP1 Beckett
    SP2 Lester
    SP3 Buch
    SP4 Lack (Injured: out all year)
    SP5 Dice (Injured until maybe August.)
    SP6 Doubront
    SP7 Weiland

    RP1 Bard
    RP2 Jenks
    RP3 Aceves
    RP4 Albers
    RP5 Morales
    RP6 Bowden

    To me, our 7 top priorities are:
    1) A solid #2/3 type starter or two starters of slot 3/4 quality.
    2) Closer 
    3) RP (at least 2)
    4) SS (Great fielder prefered)
    5) RF (RH'd and can field RF well)
    6) C 
    7) Bench

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Soon, teams will begin taking or leaving options and the FA list will grow. With so many of our own decisions to be made, it's hard to sort it all out. You have to think the "flow chart" begins with the Paps and Pap decisions and goes from there. The comp draft picks are alluring, but it's hard to imagine a team without both of these guys. However, I still feel one will walk.

    With only about $30M or so to spend and so many positions to fill, we will probably make a trade or two and trust a position or two to some of our top prospects or players (Lava, Kalish/Reddick, Iggy/Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, Doubront/Tazawa/Weiland/Ranaudo).


     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Moon,

    Solid breakdown, if the assumption is that the Sox will try to stay below the luxary threshold to open the season. Which we don't know to be true or false? Though Henry has stated in the past that, that is the budgeted goal each year. This year in 2011 the Competitive Balance Limit was set at 178M. Is it safe to assume that it will remain the same in 2012 or does it continue to increase by a certain percentage each year?...

    Based on the info I took from the website below. The limit has increased about 7M to 8M every year starting in 2007...Do you know if that is also true this year? 8M buys a lot of groceries....if it is then the Competitive Balance limit in 2012 would fall somewhere around 186M? Which would allow the sox more flexibility this year and allow them to perhaps use Matsusaka's moneys that are coming off the books in 2013 as an example this year knowing that they have "cap room moving forward?



    To answer your question regarding Gonzalez, his number does count against this years "cap"....

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: A Realistic look at 2012: Part I

    Beckett and Paplebon both end up in Texas, my prediction.
     

Share