kevo880 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 03:58 PM) If AJ is on the team, IMO there's no way the new manager sits him 3 games a week, unless he DHs one of those games. If he's not playing 5 or 6 out of every seven, I bet you see a rift with AJ and the new manager, which the new manager won't want. Did you see the one postgame presser where the Mets' manager was crying recently about letting Reyes sit out most of that final game? He said he spent the year trying to earn the players' respect and he was fine with doing Reyes the favor. The Sox new manager can't afford to run afoul of AJ. So if AJ is healthy, Flowers will get Castro-like playing time, not much at all. I wasn't implying he should sit 3 games every week, I said 1-3, depending on matchups. I think if it is AJ and Flowers behind the plate in 2012 I definitely think Flowers will get more playing time than Castro did this season. If there was a rift between AJ and the new manager it could be good as it would give AJ a reason to waive his no trade clause mid season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 05:27 PM) I think they're going to wait for Hamels/Cain to hit FA. They didn't bite on Greinke or Ubaldo, the latter on an extremely team-friendly contract. I can't see them doing so for Danks. If the Yankees lose to the Tigers they won't be allowed to wait on Hamels/Cain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictoryMC98 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) I think they're going to wait for Hamels/Cain to hit FA. They didn't bite on Greinke or Ubaldo, the latter on an extremely team-friendly contract. I can't see them doing so for Danks. But Danks is going to be a 20 game winner.... so we should get Gardner, Cano and Jesus Montero(sp)... Well According to hawk he is.. so he has to be. Edited October 4, 2011 by VictoryMC98 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 05:36 PM) If the Yankees lose to the Tigers they won't be allowed to wait on Hamels/Cain. How so? They lost out on Lee after losing to the Rangers last year and did nothing. From what I can gather, they're not trading any of their top guys (Montero, Sanchez, Betances, Banuelos) for anybody not named Felix Hernandez or Clayton Kershaw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 05:41 PM) How so? They lost out on Lee after losing to the Rangers last year and did nothing. From what I can gather, they're not trading any of their top guys (Montero, Sanchez, Betances, Banuelos) for anybody not named Felix Hernandez or Clayton Kershaw. The Yankees will not go another year with the rotation they have. If they lose there will be a ton of pressure on them to upgrade. They probably will give a spot to one of their young guys, but they're also going to trade for a pitcher. The Sox problem is Danks isn't likely to be the best option on the trade market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) But that has nothing to do with Flowers's readiness. They won't move AJ because they're not paying for him to go away. Not because Flowers isn't ready. I'm not sure you are right about that. They might make an exeption to what is generally percieved as a rule simply because they fully realize how they structured his contract. I would bet they'd eat 2M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 QUOTE (MAX @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 07:02 PM) I'm not sure you are right about that. They might make an exeption to what is generally percieved as a rule simply because they fully realize how they structured his contract. I would bet they'd eat 2M. The sox won't eat that money unless they get a legit piece back, and history has already showed us that AJ is difficult to move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) But that has nothing to do with Flowers's readiness. They won't move AJ because they're not paying for him to go away. Not because Flowers isn't ready. Yeah, no one would pay AJ $6 million next year as a free agent, let alone giving up a decent prospect for the right to pay him $6 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 03:54 PM) Need pitching back for Danks. The Yankees are a team to target though. Unless you are getting an instant starter as a field position player, you have to get pitching for Danks first and foremost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T R U Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 09:25 AM) Kenny said it's time to play the kids. At 30, Ramirez is no kid. And didn't he say he was 33 actually? I swear I heard that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 09:25 AM) Kenny said it's time to play the kids. At 30, Ramirez is no kid. Neither is DeAza (28 next year), Flowers (26 next year), Lillibridge (28 next year), Humber (29 next year), or Santos (28 next year). Morel & Gordon are 25 next year also, so you can't really call them "kids" either. What Kenny *actually* means with that wording is he wants cost-effective, team-controlled talent to offset the massive salary obligations to other players. Ramirez doesn't really get expensive until 2014, and he's under control through 2016 via options. Ramirez doesn't get moved because ATM he's part of the solution, not the problem. The total rebuild/firesale/trade-anybody-good stuff is Kansas City Royals type nonsense that leaves you in the toilet collecting poop-flavored dunce caps for decades on end. As (unfairly) vilified as Kenny & JR may be around here they are not that stupid and thankfully nobody in the front office wants to see those post-White Flag, pre-Ozzie seasons again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (Papa Tru @ Oct 4, 2011 -> 08:57 PM) And didn't he say he was 33 actually? I swear I heard that That's what he told Ed Farmer on his birthday. DJ suggested that it could have easily been a misunderstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 12:01 AM) Neither is DeAza (28 next year), Flowers (26 next year), Lillibridge (28 next year), Humber (29 next year), or Santos (28 next year). Morel & Gordon are 25 next year also, so you can't really call them "kids" either. What Kenny *actually* means with that wording is he wants cost-effective, team-controlled talent to offset the massive salary obligations to other players. Ramirez doesn't really get expensive until 2014, and he's under control through 2016 via options. Ramirez doesn't get moved because ATM he's part of the solution, not the problem. The total rebuild/firesale/trade-anybody-good stuff is Kansas City Royals type nonsense that leaves you in the toilet collecting poop-flavored dunce caps for decades on end. As (unfairly) vilified as Kenny & JR may be around here they are not that stupid and thankfully nobody in the front office wants to see those post-White Flag, pre-Ozzie seasons again. And (again) it is totally impossible to do with Rios, Dunn, and Peavy's contracts around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 CSNChi_Beatnik Brett Ballantini OK, surprise move of the offseason, offhand? Not a trade, but eating substantial $$ to drop RIos. HIGHLY unlikely. But I'll go with that. CSNChi_Beatnik Brett Ballantini Not a ton of difference between Sale '10 and Reed '11, and Sale survived... RT @tinyj: you really think Reed will survive #HotStove season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 I missed this one from Marty too... CSNChi_Beatnik Brett Ballantini His extension makes him much less movable RT @Marty341: @CSNChi_Beatnik Predict most surprising move of offseason, I say Ramirez goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) I also asked him what he thought the payroll would be and he said $120M, said cost-cutting is exagerrated. I think he's way off on that, but we'll see. He said teams will be scared off Ramirez because of the extension. Last couple years of contract could be bad. Edited October 5, 2011 by Marty34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (Marty34 @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 10:01 AM) I also asked him what he thought the payroll would be and he said $120M, said cost-cutting is exagerrated. I think he's way off on that, but we'll see. He said teams will be scared off Ramirez because of the extension. Last couple years of contract could be bad. The quote above did NOT say teams were scared off by the extension. It said he was less movable. That means, in part, that the Sox have no motivation to move him. I think you are reading more into his statement than he intended. Unless there was some other quote we missed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 09:44 AM) And (again) it is totally impossible to do with Rios, Dunn, and Peavy's contracts around. You can't do it totally-Royals-Style, but there's a different way that things could happen. If you had to push salary to $75 million...you hold those 3, dump everything else, and plan on losin 100 games next year. If any of the 3 happen to have a good enough first half that you can move them without paying the rest of their contract...you get rid of them immediately at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 01:10 PM) You can't do it totally-Royals-Style, but there's a different way that things could happen. If you had to push salary to $75 million...you hold those 3, dump everything else, and plan on losin 100 games next year. If any of the 3 happen to have a good enough first half that you can move them without paying the rest of their contract...you get rid of them immediately at that point. And watch your season ticket base go back to 1970 levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 02:11 PM) And watch your season ticket base go back to 1970 levels. With revenue sharing dollars, it still would have a good chance at profitability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 01:13 PM) With revenue sharing dollars, it still would have a good chance at profitability. Not with a $75 million payroll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 02:17 PM) Not with a $75 million payroll Boras suggested a couple years ago that for the low-salary teams, revenue sharing dollars were totalling something in the $80-$90 million range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 01:09 PM) The quote above did NOT say teams were scared off by the extension. It said he was less movable. That means, in part, that the Sox have no motivation to move him. I think you are reading more into his statement than he intended. Unless there was some other quote we missed? He tweeted this later in response to a tweet about Ramirez extension being s fair one: Brett Ballantini Fair, but no longer a steal and, potentially, a bad contract late Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 01:19 PM) Boras suggested a couple years ago that for the low-salary teams, revenue sharing dollars were totalling something in the $80-$90 million range. Teams with those payrolls don't receive funds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2011 -> 02:22 PM) Teams with those payrolls don't receive funds. Yes they do. Baseball takes in an enormous amount of shared funds these days. DirecTV package, radio packages, merchandise, playoff revenue, national TV contracts, ESPN contracts, those funds don't just go to the low revenue teams. The Luxury tax dollars go to the low salary teams...but at this point, even the Yankees are only paying a small luxury tax amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.