Balta1701

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 06:00 PM) I think that's the best rotation we can hope for. I wonder though if the payroll will be closer to the $90-$95M range and attendance projected to be around 1.75M-1.8M. Considering how long this team has sat at $100 million payrolls, basically 2006-2010 they averaged $105 million, it's hard for me to fathom them being forced to go back to $90 even with this attendance drop. It could happen, but if that's the case...then not selling more people at the deadline this year looks even more criminal.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 05:53 PM) As much as I believe that Humber could stick around as at least a decent starter, Santos had two seasons of performing well. I don't want to commit to Humber after just one season that may end up being a fluke. At least in my view...a $2.6 million/year, 3 year commitment to Philip Humber is not a big risk compared to what he gave this year. We paid Linebrink 1.5 times that much this year to go away. Hell, in the fangraphs world he was worth $15 million this year alone. He also had a decent positive stint with the Royals in 2010 worth remembering.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 05:43 PM) Floyd is gone as well as Thornton for cost cutting reasons and it decreases even more. Note what I'm doing in my scenario...I haven't moved anyone I don't have an obvious replacement for. I don't currently have an obvious replacement for those 2. Thus...if I have to move them, then it makes competing next year quite a bit harder. Possibly that one LHP who came up this season as a replacement for Thornton as a 2nd lefty, but that is a likely substantial downgrade. If $110 million isn't sustainable and we must get down to $100 million, then those 2 would be on the moveable list. I don't like the idea of replacing Floyd with Axelrod or Stewart off the bat very much...in this case, the Sox need a Cooper-specialty or to grab an MLB-ready starter in 1 of these deals.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 05:43 PM) I certainly hope not. Why not? $8 million to lock him up for 3+ years would not be a bad gamble after the year he threw this year.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 05:35 PM) What's the rotation and payroll estimate for this? Assume that M-56 resigns for somewhere in the $10 million range. Danks and Quentin are traded. Rotation: Mark! Peavy Sale Humber Floyd That is not bad at all...if Jake Peavy can pitch like a better than average starter. I can even bury Stewart or Axelrod at AAA and have them ready to go if Humber tires out again or Peavy gets hurt. I'm at $88 million on commits, probably $90 after signing Sergio today. $10 million for Mark Buehrle gives me 13 players under contract at $100 million. Filling up the rest of the roster with minimum salary guys takes me to $107 million or so. That's a $20 million salary cut from this season's payroll with that scenario. If Peavy, Dunn, and Rios struggle, then I'm playing De Aza, Viciedo, Beckham, Morel, Flowers, Sale, Reed, Santos, and Humber a lot to try to develop them, because the season is lost, and I can throw in the towel and try to move Floyd, Crain, Thornton and Ohman at the deadline. And all of that has assumed zero return on Danks and Quentin being moved. Now, we do have trader kenny as the GM still which means that the unexpected is somewhere between possible and likely...but this is a scenario that works, keeps starting pitching depth, gives us a bullpen as good or better than this year's (if Reed performs), and isn't a huge, obvious downgrade anywhere.

:lolhitting :lolhitting :lolhitting

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 05:12 PM) They can compete with what around them? Keep Danks, Quentin, Thornton et al? That's great on paper, however it's very likely that there will be a decline in attendance next year making a $125M payroll a pipe dream. If you keep Danks and Floyd in hopes of competing you devalue two of your most tradeable commodities. No, if Viciedo replaces Quentin in the OF, De Aza replaces Pierre, and we keep Buehrle around while going to a 5 man rotation instead of this lousy 6 man thing, the team is potentially competitive right there...but the big question is whether Dunn, Rios, Beckham, and Peavy will be black holes. Remember, Quentin only put up an .850 OPS this year, good but not irreplaceable, and he missed more than a month of the season. Danks was flat out bad for 2 months, hurt for another month, and I can count on what, 1 hand the number of truly dominant starts he had? De Aza is almost certainly an upgrade from Pierre, Morel Year 2 ought to be a substantial upgrade from Morel year 1, Flowers + AJ will at least hold down the fort at catcher, Konerko I'm getting sick of predicting a step back from him. Where are the downgrades? Viciedo to Quentin possibly/probably. AJ and Konerko another year older possibly. Alexei could have a terrible season. Crain or someone like that could get hurt, but now we're grasping at straws. 27 weak/below average starts from Danks removed from the staff isn't a big downgrade, especially if Humber can take on some of those innings. Mark might not be quite as strong next year. If you get good production out of the dead 4, that will easily overwhelm any downgrade from this year's stinkfest. Those 4 could each give you 3 or more WAR compared to this season, which on its own makes up 12 of those games that we fell behind this year. Hell, Dunn having a good year compared to this year would be an extra 6 WAR.

Can bodyguards really be effective against Ganon?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 04:49 PM) I wonder if the lack of mileage on his arm actually lets him go a little older than normal? The alternative is that the lack of conditioning on his arm at an early age could blow it out earlier.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 04:46 PM) Right, but you can't sit still while you wait for these contracts to roll off. The goal has to be to have a cheap, solid core together by 2014 so that you can fill in the holes by spending. If those 3(4) actually perform next year, there's no real reason why this team can't compete for the Central. That's obviously an enormous "If", but it's clearly true.

Although I think she gets kidnapped a lot.

You sure?

Well, it has its moments.

Unless you're a college student.

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 04:30 PM) I don't believe I sugested Oz was going to die poor, but do you really think Ozzie has enough to watch $8,000,000.00 slip away? You can always live a little better. An even bigger boat, an even bigger house, bigger diamonds for the wife and girlfriend, even longer and more lavish vacations. I just watched a special about a ship that rents for $500,000 per week. Think a guy with a couple million in the bank will lease it for a month and cruise the Med Sea? How about a guy with $10 mil in the bank? If no one desired a house more expensive than a milliom bucks, then no one would build $5 mil homes. Think about this, didn't Jordan make enough playing basketball? Why did he endorse products? I've read very few people that say they have enough money and don't want any more. Yes, he's set for life. But do you think he doesn't want to improve on how "set" he is? The answer to this is to go back to Reagan-era upper level tax rates. (/rimshot).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 04:25 PM) Who praised any of those deals when they happened? Especially Werth, Crawford, or Drew? I think a ton of people had Boston penciled in for the AL East this year, don't you?

Russian vodka would help too.

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 04:20 PM) Actually Dunn should be the person to take the responsibility for playing this poorly. About the last guy to be blamed for the way Dunn played should be the GM. Should the Nats GM take any blame for the Werth signing? Should Theo take any blame for Crawford, Drew, and Lackey?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 04:13 PM) That means they get options for his first two FA years. 3 year deal covers last year of pre-arb and two arb years. Options would cover last arb and first two FA. ok, so 3 option years, even better. The initial thread headline had 2 option years I believe.

It's the final day for Q3 fundraising numbers. Ron Paul is at his normal $5 million. Rick Perry really needs a big fundraising quarter. He needs a big showing in that number.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 03:58 PM) I don't see the '05 model as the plan. They can't get out from the Dunn contract to fill holes like they did with the Lee contract. Also, it looks like there is going to be a significant payroll reduction next year, perhaps 25% or more. Something that did not happen from 2004 to 2005. If the Sox want to be competitive, the plan has to be recovery from the $50 million in dead weight space on their roster (plus Beckham). Everything has to be focused on making that happen. If it doesn't happen we're not getting anywhere.

So he's been up for 2 years now, this basically means the Sox guarantee him $8.25 million and in exchange they get an option year for his first free-agency year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 04:02 PM) I'm not uncomfortable that this guy is dead but I am uncomfortable with a legal theory that allows the President to assassinate a US citizen. See, that's the problem...when you add in the circumstances and the existence of an AUMF, it makes the whole deal more complicated. If there were no AUMF in existence regarding Al Qaeda then clearly this would be illegal...but he's essentially become a combattant in something that the U.S. has authorized military force against, but he of course has had no ability to receive due process to challenge that. It's murky enough that I'd like to see better law written to clarify this exact case.

Obviously you just need to add gravy and call it part of Thanksgiving.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 02:50 PM) No argument for imminent danger? There are 2 issues in your post here. First, how do you define "Imminent". "Conspiring to commit acts at some unknown point in the future and having done so in the past" may or may not reach the legal standard of "Imminent". Secondly, how do you define "Danger" if he's not the one personally committing the violent act? You're right, it seems like the President ought to be able to do this...but I don't think the law is clear on where the limits are. We have a U.S. citizen who went overseas and joined a group who the U.S. has taken out an AUMF against, but the U.S. itself is not considered to be at a state of war, there is no single entity at which the U.S. is at war with, and this "Citizen" had no option to defend himself in courts. It's murky enough that I'm uncomfortable with either answer.