Kalapse

Yeah I fail to see how being honest with the fans makes him a smartass. Given the current state of the economy and the subsequent effect it's had on the free agent market in baseball there's absolutely no reason to throw large sums of guaranteed money at players who are still 4 yeas away from free agency. If the economy rebounds (hence the Dow Jones remark) and the price of players begins to rise back to the usual levels then he can think about locking up some of these younger players and buying out a few of those potentially costly free agent years.

QUOTE (Whitewashed in '05 @ Feb 7, 2009 -> 12:56 PM) So who was the third? Keep it in PMs. No reason to be throwing that s*** around on a very public forum.

I also own 3:10 to Yuma, love that movie.

100% up to date: LINK

Show random games from the 1994 season, it doesn't even matter what team and I'll be happy.

I updated the first post. Check back in a few days for the new graphic.

Christian Bale was in the right.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 07:57 AM) And that does not include the $5 million they spent to get out of their spring training lease, correct? Thanks for difinatively busting the "$30 million less than last year" myth BTW. Nope, that was not included.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 02:51 AM) I take it you saw my comment on the PSN, too. The demo was terrible. Bad controls, can't move while aiming, weak gun, an IDIOT partner and a douche bag of a main character. The FEAR 2 demo was okay, though. Yeah I saw it just now. Agreed on FEAR 2, it looks like a pretty average shooter, definitely playable.

Yogi the

If Resident Evil 5 is going to be anything like the demo then count me out. I've never been a big RE fan and it appears the latest incarnation will fail to sway me, I just find it boring. What the hell kind of game makes you stop moving before you can fire your underpowered pistol that sounds like a cap-gun? I'd rather play Dead Space, at least that game allows me to run and gun a little.

Sometimes I truly hate the internet.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 10:54 PM) So the Reds would take on Dye's $11.5 mill + give up another $3 mill. + Bailey so pay out $14.5 mill and give up a prospect when Abreu is probably there for the taking for $10 mill. ? It looks to me like Dye + $3M = Bailey. So the Sox would be pitching in a little cash to help pay for Dye's salary. So his logic is the Sox clear $8M in payroll and add a young, incredibly cheap, high upside starter because in these economic times that $8M gets you quite a bit on the open market (Abreu) and young, cheap players are at a premium.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 09:58 PM) Does MLB include those signing bonus numbers in their payrolls though, in terms of the official numbers? I mean, Beckham's arguably closer to the big leagues than Viciedo and is 3 years older, and yet I've never heard of a player from the draft having his signing bonus included in the payroll the following season. I guess it doesn't matter, if KW considers Viciedo to be making $5 million this year and to be essentially replacing Swisher...but then that money for 2010/11/12 would definitely shrink, along with losing Thome, Contreras, Dye and then Konerko the following year. That's $45-50 million for those four players, or half our current payroll. Viciedo signed a major league deal, Beckham did not. If Gordon Beckham had signed a major league deal after being drafted like Andrew Miller or Rick Porcello then his signing bonus would likely be included. The guaranteed money goes from $98.125M this year to $41.2M next but that doesn't include Danks and Floyd who will both be arbitration eligible for the first time and Bobby Jenks who will likely make $10M+ if he has a decent 2009 season. In 2011 the Sox are responsible for $21.85M and only Viciedo's $2.5M salary is on the books for 2012.

I'm going to update the graphic sometime in the next few days. I posted it in another thread but as of right now the Sox are responsible for $98,125,000. That includes all player salaries, contract buyouts (Griffey, Hall, etc.), the money from Cincinnati and Viciedo's signing bonus. That number only accounts for 15 players on the 40 man roster (16 total including MacDougal) and 14 that will be on the 25 man roster come opening day so you can add another 11 cheap players and ~$4.75M to it bringing the probable opening day payroll to $102,875,000.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 09:15 PM) I noticed that Jenks' one-year salary hasn't been added to the payroll resource. So that's included in the $98 million as well...? And I'm assuming nothing about the relocation/Tucson/ST payout either, logically...even though it could be yet another factor in the overall bottom line. The number I just posted is a new one, I have a spreadsheet that I update constantly so Jenks' salary is included. The graphic has yet to be updated, I'll get to that in the next few days.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 09:15 PM) Does that include Viciedo's signing bonus or just his base salary for 2009? Has anyone confirmed if we are getting any money from the Phillies for Thome (supposedly $6 million) and/or if we have any insurance for Contreras (although it looks like he COULD be back as early as May and that would negate the insurance payout)??? That does include Viciedo's signing bonus and all player buyouts. I have found no confirmation on the Thome thing, George Offman eluded to it late last year but I've heard no mention of it since then.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 08:56 PM) Really curious who this mysterious pitcher is. And I know this has essentially been the slowest moving offseason ever, but why now? Well the Sox are responsible for $98,125,000 for the 2009 season at this time and that's only 16 players, 14 of which will be ready for opening day so you can add on another 11 players at a total of about $4.75M to make that number $102,875,000 heading into opening day. I can't imagine they have much more money to spend at this time, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

QUOTE (forrestg @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 05:21 PM) last I heard the sox were at 100 million what is another 8 million and whoever questioned why the Yankees didn't offer Abreu arbitration the replier stated that his salary would be 15 million after arb. That has to be the biggest story when have the Yanks ever gone the austerity route. I look at the Yankees having an endless supply of cash. What is 15 million to Bronx Bombers.. Something very fishy about how the yanks are just letting him go. I think the sox can just sign him Bobby can play centerfield for the sox. The old theory of strong up the middle doesn't mean much to Ozzie and KW and feel very strongly that Abreu can play center as well as Carl Everett, Mackowiak, Swisher, Griffey and Owens. No, not at all. Not even close. Players on the Yankees roster as of December 1st (last day to offer arbitration to Type A/B free agents): Johnny Damon (CF/DH/LF) Xavier Nady (LF/RF) Nick Swisher (LF/RF/1B/CF) Melky Cabrera (CF) Hideki Matsui (DH/LF) Positions that Cashman knew would be open: DH, LF, CF, RF Now add Bobby Abreu ($17M-$18M) to that clusterf*** and tell me where he fits. Sure the Yankees have a seemingly endless supply of money but they at least make an attempt to spend it on useful pieces, Abreu would have been redundant. As of now they're stuck with 1 too many players for 4 positions and are looking to move one of Swisher/Nady, imagine trying to trade a $16M Bobby Abreu in this current economic climate. They came to the conclusion that the risk of having Abreu accept arbitration was not worth 2 draft picks. That's all there really is to it.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 03:13 PM) Well according to both Chicago radio shows, if the Sox were to sign Abreu, a Dye trade would have to happen first. I just dont see this happening... I also don't see the Angels dealing Figgins. Who would there leadoff hitter be then? If these 2 options exist, you would have to pull the trigger. Figgins/Abreu outwieghs Dye's production IMO. We already have pleanty of power... Figgins/Abreu would add a little bit of OBP and SB productivity to our lineup. Unless of course Abreu steals bases like he did last year then he's more of a detriment than an asset.

Find my Flamethrower Freddy sig and win a prize. Seriously, anyone who tracks down and posts that sig will receive a wonderful prize from yours truly.

"Why can't the Sox pickup Abreu and trade him to the Cubs for some of their pitching prospects?" This is why I don't listen to much sports radio and absolutely none of Mike Murphy.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 01:13 PM) Most teams place a weak hitter in the #9 spot. Either a pitcher in the NL or a weak hitting batter in the AL. I've ALWAYS felt you need a strong hitter in the #9 hole. It's a great way to turn over the line-up. A line-up isnt top to bottom, it's a circle. Except that "circle" ends with the #9 hitter receiving significantly fewer plate appearances than the rest of the lineup over a given season. Last year there was a 150 PA difference between the Sox leadoff hitter and #9 hitter.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 01:09 PM) why didn't the yankees didn't offer abreu arbitration? good for us should we land him btw abreu hits lefties pretty well....292/.370/.432 over the last three years Abreu made $15M last year so he would have gotten $15M-$16M in arbitration add the $2M buyout on top of that and they didn't feel it was worth the risk.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) I personally think Abreu could hit 3 and Q 4. 1. Someone 2. Getz 3. Abreu 4. Q 5 Thome 6. Konerko 7. AJP 8 Fields 9 Alexei-this is where he has performed the best Alexei in the #2 spot = ~750 PA Alexei in the #6 spot = ~680 PA Alexei in the #9 spot = ~620 PA Is it really worth limiting his PAs like this because he got hot for 100 PA in the 9th spot last season?