PDA

View Full Version : In a nutshell



Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 05:30 PM
I feel like the Sox have pulled off a huge con job and great tracts of RSN have lapped it up.

"You can't hold us accountable, because....ta-daaaa! we made two bad contracts disapeer and now you have no expectations until 2014-2015! TADAAA" Just like a good magician or slick-talking politician.

(RSN applauds) "We like shiny fireworks!!"


This year's "Play the GM" threads will be hilarious. I predict a good third of them say "Trade for King Felix"

I'll give you mine right now.: "Fire Valentine, Cherington and Luchhino"

SirHizz
08-26-2012, 05:39 PM
No way that's the plan of our FO. They have made a great job we (the fans) applaud them for, but that good feeling goes no longer than the start of next season. As if we would be satisfied with another (below) .500 season. But the expectations will be lower, no WS-favorites and no 100 wins.

"A good third"...that was the usual number over the past few years, wasn't it? It will be even higher ;)

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 05:41 PM
No way that's the plan of our FO. They have made a great job we (the fans) applaud them for, but that good feeling goes no longer than the start of next season. As if we would be satisfied with another (below) .500 season. But the expectations will be lower, no WS-favorites and no 100 wins.

"A good third"...that was the usual number over the past few years, wasn't it? It will be even higher ;)

I have a hard time seeing this team over .500 next year. Given the scarce FA crop. What goes out onto the field and loses 92 games this year IS our team next year. I don't see how they even make up the 4-5 WAR that AG gets next year.

SirHizz
08-26-2012, 05:47 PM
I have a hard time seeing this team over .500 next year. Given the scarce FA crop. What goes out onto the field and loses 92 games this year IS our team next year. I don't see how they even make up the 4-5 WAR that AG gets next year.

Only if you expect them all to be injured again, otherwise we'd be around .500 right now. Not much better, but at least a little bit.
Ok, Adrian's WAR must be replaced, but Ells and CC haven' contributed this year at all, Beckett even in a negative way.
Moreover I can't see Lester having another 5+ ERA season.

Like I said in other threads, they need to get creative on the FA market or via trade-route. Doesn't have to be superstars, but good players here and there and a +.500 is not out of the question. Next season stands and falls with our rotation.

avrpatsfan
08-26-2012, 05:50 PM
:laugh:

I really don't know where to start with this thread.

Nomar
08-26-2012, 05:52 PM
:laugh:

I really don't know where to start with this thread.

Yeah... this will be my only comment here

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 05:58 PM
:laugh:

I really don't know where to start with this thread.

You and Nomars appreciation of splashy moves is appreciated.

Bos_Sports4Life
08-26-2012, 06:09 PM
I feel like the Sox have pulled off a huge con job and great tracts of RSN have lapped it up.

"You can't hold us accountable, because....ta-daaaa! we made two bad contracts disapeer and now you have no expectations until 2014-2015! TADAAA" Just like a good magician or slick-talking politician.

(RSN applauds) "We like shiny fireworks!!"


This year's "Play the GM" threads will be hilarious. I predict a good third of them say "Trade for King Felix"

I'll give you mine right now.: "Fire Valentine, Cherington and Luchhino"


So they would have been better off keeping the same team together??

1. they changed the clubhouse culture (not all of it, but it's going to change pretty drastically imo, esp if lackey also goes by next yr)

2. They netted 2 blue chip prospects that will help them build within, something that a team almost needs in order to win

3. This team now has a pretty strong farm system with large amounts of financial flexibility which features only 1 bad contract.

What is there not to like? Sure, it may take until '14 or even '15 to once again be a serious powerhouse...But how long would it take if the trade wasn't made?

avrpatsfan
08-26-2012, 06:17 PM
You and Nomars appreciation of splashy moves is appreciated.
Please explain.

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 06:21 PM
So they would have been better off keeping the same team together??

1. they changed the clubhouse culture (not all of it, but it's going to change pretty drastically imo, esp if lackey also goes by next yr)

Completly unscientific. I thought we were supposed to win more games by getting rid of Youk. And shouldn't they start winning more games because Beckett is gone.


2. They netted 2 blue chip prospects that will help them build within, something that a team almost needs in order to win

Who? None of those guys have ever rated higher than #90.


3. This team now has a pretty strong farm system with large amounts of financial flexibility which features only 1 bad contract.

What is there not to like? Sure, it may take until '14 or even '15 to once again be a serious powerhouse...But how long would it take if the trade wasn't made?

That exact same team was 83-52 less than a year ago. How did that happen and how did they end up losing 92 games in 2012? Chemistry accounts for a 20 game swing? Or did the three guys i want fired make massive mistakes combined with injuries and bad luck?

avrpatsfan
08-26-2012, 06:25 PM
Who? None of those guys have ever rated higher than #90.
Top 100 prospects=blue chippers.

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 06:29 PM
Top 100 prospects=blue chippers.

2009: Lars Anderson #17

But allright, I'll accept that definition. Withdrawn.

avrpatsfan
08-26-2012, 06:30 PM
2009: Lars Anderson #17

But allright, I'll accept that definition. Withdrawn.
I never said all prospects pan out. :laugh2:

Also, blue chipper =/ sure thing.

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 06:34 PM
By the way, I'm trademarking "Tubby De La Rosa" because I expect to see it a lot.

Bos_Sports4Life
08-26-2012, 06:36 PM
Completly unscientific. I thought we were supposed to win more games by getting rid of Youk. And shouldn't they start winning more games because Beckett is gone.

Idk WHO thought getting rid of youk was going to solve the issues.



Who? None of those guys have ever rated higher than #90.

Fact is, both have be listed in the top 100...Getting 2 arms that have both been ranked that high is pretty solid.




That exact same team was 83-52 less than a year ago. How did that happen and how did they end up losing 92 games in 2012? Chemistry accounts for a 20 game swing? Or did the three guys i want fired make massive mistakes combined with injuries and bad luck?

They havn't won a playoff game since '09. Crawford/Beckett were under perfoming badly. Heck, Even Agon didn't seem to fit Boston all that much and wasn't a team leader.

They got under 1 bad deal, 1 disastrous deal, netted multiple top 100 prospects AND helped fix the clubhouse.

avrpatsfan
08-26-2012, 06:38 PM
By the way, I'm trademarking "Tubby De La Rosa" because I expect to see it a lot.
He weighs 185 pounds.

Nomar
08-26-2012, 06:40 PM
2009: Lars Anderson #17

But allright, I'll accept that definition. Withdrawn.

Im going back on my first comment lol, but whatever.

The prospect game is the biggest guessing game there is in baseball. But the fact is De La Rosa and Webster both have the potential to be impact players.

One thing history has showed me is that if a guy is supposed to have power but isnt showing it by the time he is acclimated to AA, dont count on that power being there. People love to believe that guys like Lars Anderson (#17) and James Loney (#34) are going to develop power, but a lot of these guys flop.

Another thing is the whole clubhouse chemistry thing. I think a lot of the chemistry is played up in the minds of fans. Even if this is true, the media hen starts to nitpick the smallest things and turn them into issues like they have done this year. This years team certainly had their fair share of chemistry problems, theres no doubt. And although you may not see it as a major problem Pavel, i think just giving the perception that everything is fine will get the media off the teams nuts, which will help them focus on just the game next year. At the end of the day, fans just need a team with players the like rooting for. This year we struggled with "stars" like CC, Beckett, and Lester doing nothing for this team, and the fans resented the Sox. For at least the next two years, we'll be underdogs, and the fans will most likely be rooting for the team hard, even through tough times.

Youkilis left the team and people thought it would help the chemistry, when Youkilis only had a problem with Bobby V just like basically everyone else. Getting rid of him really solved nothing. I still dont have a problem with him getting traded because at the time it seemed like the right thing for the team, but it would be nice to have him now.

Nomar
08-26-2012, 06:42 PM
He weighs 185 pounds.

So upside: Lincecum Jr. haha

AI
08-26-2012, 06:46 PM
Top 100 prospects=blue chippers.

Sickels said that if Rubby still had prospect status, he'd grade him as a B+. This would put both him and Webster, also graded at B+, in the 3-5 range behind Bogaerts and Barnes.

avrpatsfan
08-26-2012, 06:51 PM
Sickels said that if Rubby still had prospect status, he'd grade him as a B+. This would put both him and Webster, also graded at B+, in the 3-5 range behind Bogaerts and Barnes.
I saw that and that's very encouraging. A B+ rating from Sickels is very good.

Bos_Sports4Life
08-26-2012, 07:02 PM
2009: Lars Anderson #17

So what? Does that mean top prospects have no value?

By your logic, Boston should have traded Lester/Ells for Santana..

These 2 guys give them even more options, It allows them to trade for a proven player without completely emptying out the farm.


Red sox farm looks better than it has in a while.

Blake Swihart- Ranked 72nd after the '11 season
Bogaerts- Ranked 55th after the '11 season
Matt Barnes- Cant find updated lists, but he's deff in the top 100.
Webster/De La Rosa- Both have appared in the top 100 since '11

Henry Owens/Jackie Bradley are 2 other pspects to get excited for (esp bradley who could be up by late next season.)
Even Iglesias/Lavarnway could be solid players.

Nomar
08-26-2012, 07:04 PM
So what? Does that mean top prospects have no value?

By your logic, Boston should have traded Lester/Ells for Santana..

These 2 guys give them even more options, It allows them to trade for a proven player without completely emptying out the farm.


Red sox farm looks better than it has in a while.

Blake Swihart- Ranked 72nd after the '11 season
Bogaerts- Ranked 55th after the '11 season
Matt Barnes- Cant find updated lists, but he's deff in the top 100.
Webster/De La Rosa- Both have appared in the top 100 since '11

Henry Owens/Jackie Bradley are 2 other pspects to get excited for (esp bradley who could be up by late next season.)
Even Iglesias/Lavarnway could be solid players.

BA had Barnes at #13 Mid Year. He and Bogaerts will at least be top 20 after this year.

AI
08-26-2012, 07:28 PM
Bogaerts will probably be a top 10 spec. Barnes will be top 20, Bradley in the 30-40 range.

Webster, Brentz, Cecchini, Owens, Swihart and Lavarnway (if he hasn't lost prospect status) are others who could make the list.

elements1985
08-26-2012, 07:29 PM
I feel like the Sox have pulled off a huge con job and great tracts of RSN have lapped it up.

"You can't hold us accountable, because....ta-daaaa! we made two bad contracts disapeer and now you have no expectations until 2014-2015! TADAAA" Just like a good magician or slick-talking politician.

(RSN applauds) "We like shiny fireworks!!"


This year's "Play the GM" threads will be hilarious. I predict a good third of them say "Trade for King Felix"

I'll give you mine right now.: "Fire Valentine, Cherington and Luchhino"

The FO pulled off one of the most improbable deals in MLB history -- where's the 'con-job' coming from? Nobody expects this team to be better in 2012. The mood of this season is still a somber one.

And admitting a problem is the first step. Provided Henry doesn't sell, this is the first step towards restoring baseball ops' influence.

Weren't you one of the biggest CC naysayers, BTW?

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 07:31 PM
For at least the next two years, we'll be underdogs, and the fans will most likely be rooting for the team hard, even through tough times.

.

And that is EXACTLY what I said in my OP. But it's a con. I have heard numerous people say "I don't care if we lose 100 games as long as I don't have to worry about Crawford and Beckett. And if losing AGon is the price we pay for a Crawford and Beckettless team, then so be it"....then of course some will try and prove that Agon wasn't so hot, but that's a different topic.

It's a con. In which scenario does the FO have the better chance of keeping their jobs:

1. Lose 90 games.

2. Lose 92 games and punt Crawford and Beckett?

#2 looks good right? It's not much different then #1. But the point is they should lose their jobs regardless and all this BS about the poor pooor constricted Boston Royals is just smoke and mirrors. It's a November Surprise in August.

They are going to lose almost 20 games off last year and they should lose their jobs.

They made the team worse this year, the team will be almost just as bad next year and if/when they make it in 2015+* it will be because of the farm and not the contracts they shell out to BJ Upton and Nick Swisher.

I'm glad they got rid of CC, a little indifferent about Beckett...mad as ****** that they took a team that did actually manage to win 89 games last year and turned this place into the clowniest clowny-*** clown town you can imagine. They should lose their jobs.

*A ridiculous position to be in for a team with the resources of the Sox.

AI
08-26-2012, 07:36 PM
Injuries, under-performing, and no pitching. Don't we have the same problems every year?

You can't predict injuries or X/Y player having a down year, but you can fix the pitching and that is something we did not do this offseason. It looks like the FO has realized that pitching is a big problem, Ben has done a pretty god job of stockpiling arms down in the farm.

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 07:45 PM
Im going back on my first comment lol, but whatever.

The prospect game is the biggest guessing game there is in baseball. But the fact is De La Rosa and Webster both have the potential to be impact players.

One thing history has showed me is that if a guy is supposed to have power but isnt showing it by the time he is acclimated to AA, dont count on that power being there. People love to believe that guys like Lars Anderson (#17) and James Loney (#34) are going to develop power, but a lot of these guys flop.

Another thing is the whole clubhouse chemistry thing. I think a lot of the chemistry is played up in the minds of fans. Even if this is true, the media hen starts to nitpick the smallest things and turn them into issues like they have done this year. This years team certainly had their fair share of chemistry problems, theres no doubt. And although you may not see it as a major problem Pavel, i think just giving the perception that everything is fine will get the media off the teams nuts, which will help them focus on just the game next year. At the end of the day, fans just need a team with players the like rooting for. This year we struggled with "stars" like CC, Beckett, and Lester doing nothing for this team, and the fans resented the Sox. For at least the next two years, we'll be underdogs, and the fans will most likely be rooting for the team hard, even through tough times.

Youkilis left the team and people thought it would help the chemistry, when Youkilis only had a problem with Bobby V just like basically everyone else. Getting rid of him really solved nothing. I still dont have a problem with him getting traded because at the time it seemed like the right thing for the team, but it would be nice to have him now.


He weighs 185 pounds.

http://www.kget.com/Photo.aspx?content_id=515ebaf1-3eef-4cc8-ad84-6a5ccc59ea01

Is he 5' 8"

SirHizz
08-26-2012, 07:51 PM
Bogaerts will probably be a top 10 spec. Barnes will be top 20, Bradley in the 30-40 range.

Webster, Brentz, Cecchini, Owens, Swihart and Lavarnway (if he hasn't lost prospect status) are others who could make the list.

I fully expect Bogaerts to be top 10 (easily), now that he's even managing AA. That must be worth something as he's THE or one of the youngest players in Double-A
Therefore I expect Barnes in the top 20, JBJ fringe top 30 and Webster top 50. Then there might be a little dropoff with outside chances of making the top 100 to Owens (as scouts love the peripherals), Brentz, Cecchini and Swihart.

4 guys in the top 50 would be huge and very telling. I know not every prospect on our farm is gonna pan out, but it's still intriguing.
If I had a wish on one prospect panning out, it would be Xander. :)

ciaban
08-26-2012, 08:01 PM
Completly unscientific. I thought we were supposed to win more games by getting rid of Youk. And shouldn't they start winning more games because Beckett is gone.



Who? None of those guys have ever rated higher than #90.



That exact same team was 83-52 less than a year ago. How did that happen and how did they end up losing 92 games in 2012? Chemistry accounts for a 20 game swing? Or did the three guys i want fired make massive mistakes combined with injuries and bad luck?
andre ethier was rated at 89 matt kemp was rated 96 sure glad they didn't get traded!

and just because allen webster is rated like 95 right now, doesn't mean he can't go up, or he wont be rated higher! He is an extreme ground ball pitcher who has allowed 1 home run the whole year, and gets a lot of strike outs without walking a whole lot, if you really don't want him, i am sure the dodgers would take him back!

I think people get way to hung up on where individuals are ranked on these different arbitrary lists, which a lot of times come down to the level which guys are at, and not ability and ceiling, if i was going to trade for a pitching prospect, i would rather have a guy in High A with ace potential then someone who in AAA but projects as a #4 pitcher, also, a lot of these lists discriminate against players drafted after the first two rounds which is why despite killing the ball at every level matt kemp was ratted at 95

Crucis
08-26-2012, 08:07 PM
I'm glad they got rid of CC, a little indifferent about Beckett...mad as ****** that they took a team that did actually manage to win 89 games last year and turned this place into the clowniest clowny-*** clown town you can imagine. They should lose their jobs..

They just didn't simplly manage to get rid of CC and Beckett. They managed to do it while getting the Dodgers to take on 95% of their remaining salary. The FO might have been able to swing a deal to dump CC and/or Beckett earlier and retain AGon, but it would have probably required that the Sox eat a big chunk of the remaining salary. With Beckett, that might not have been too big a deal, as he was "only" owned $32M. But with CC, his remaining salary was around $102M. And any deal that called for the Sox to eat 30 or 40 or 50% would have required the Sox to eat some really painful dollars, and may have made doing such a deal too painful for ownership.

This is a spectacular deal from a financial perspective for the Sox because they're out from under $260 MILLION in salaries, including the about $135M that remained for CC and Beckett.

If you want to talk about how LL should lose his job, fine. Whatever. But I don't see how the same should hold true for Charrington. He didn't get the team into this mess, but he did help the team get out of it.

Nomar
08-26-2012, 08:14 PM
Who cares how many games we would win with them? No matter what, were not in the playoffs for a couple years with this team or the team from two days ago.

AI
08-26-2012, 08:20 PM
Did anybody else know that Webster has only given up 1 HR in 121 IP's in AA this year? Holy crap.

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 08:28 PM
They just didn't simplly manage to get rid of CC and Beckett. They managed to do it while getting the Dodgers to take on 95% of their remaining salary. The FO might have been able to swing a deal to dump CC and/or Beckett earlier and retain AGon, but it would have probably required that the Sox eat a big chunk of the remaining salary. With Beckett, that might not have been too big a deal, as he was "only" owned $32M. But with CC, his remaining salary was around $102M. And any deal that called for the Sox to eat 30 or 40 or 50% would have required the Sox to eat some really painful dollars, and may have made doing such a deal too painful for ownership.

This is a spectacular deal from a financial perspective for the Sox because they're out from under $260 MILLION in salaries, including the about $135M that remained for CC and Beckett.

If you want to talk about how LL should lose his job, fine. Whatever. But I don't see how the same should hold true for Charrington. He didn't get the team into this mess, but he did help the team get out of it.

'mess'

90-72
1B: GG, Silver slugger, 153 OPS+
2B: 129 OPS+ former ROY, MVP

CF: 2cnd place MVP

Elite Closer

DH: Best in the game 152 OPS+

3 starters with ERA+ of 125 or more

A longman with a 167 ERA+
A setup man with 125 ERA+

Now...yes, there are a lot of holes. And the right decision was made to let Paps go. But I can think of about 28 owners that would love to inherit that team*. That's the team Ben inherited and he lost 20 games off the win total. No excuses.

Lowrie for a reliever who provided negative WAR
Reddick for a fat injury-prone releiver who will not be used optimally
Took a guy who threw 114 innings last year and stuck him in a less impactful spot for fewer innings.
Youk for ****ing nothing
Turned down a chance to trade CC for Hanley Ramirez and Heath Bell, which would have let us keep AGon.

I don't care how good it looked at the time, GM or stockbroker, your job is to prognosticate and he drove the team into the ground for this year, and next year.

Now if he keeps his job and they make the playoffs next year or does something more solid than theoretical forecasting of finances we can refer back to this and I'll say how wrong I was about him.

Wins and losses are the bottom line. 90-72 to 70-92.

edit: * And did..in fact inherit them. And are very thankful to the Sox for being clowns. The A's, the White Sox and the Dodgers could all very well make the playoffs and it will be due to significant contributions from the Red Sox

Rangers too if we extend our mistakes back a few years.

Nomar
08-26-2012, 08:28 PM
Did anybody else know that Webster has only given up 1 HR in 121 IP's in AA this year? Holy crap.

Saw that too. His sinking FB is obviously the real deal. He is Lowe 2.0

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 08:32 PM
Who cares how many games we would win with them? No matter what, were not in the playoffs for a couple years with this team or the team from two days ago.

That team went 90-72 and would make the playoffs under this years set-up.

That the current regime did not figure out how to repeat that or even approach it is on them and has nothing to do with who was getting paid what. The team did not pass up attractive options because of finances.

That regime created an atmosphere a billion times more toxic than last year and that is on them.

Nomar
08-26-2012, 08:36 PM
That team went 90-72 and would make the playoffs under this years set-up.

That the current regime did not figure out how to repeat that or even approach it is on them and has nothing to do with who was getting paid what. The team did not pass up attractive options because of finances.

That regime created an atmosphere a billion times more toxic than last year and that is on them.

The team that went 90-72 had a Beckett with a sub 3 ERA, which will never happen again even in the NL West. Everyone is getting older, we need youth.

There are additions we can make this year that make us semi relevant in the race for the second spot next year.

For Example:

Cecchini, Brentz, Bard, and Ranaudo for Justin Upton.

Ellsbury for Elvis Andrus (+ maybe)

Sign McCarthy (or another #3ish SP to a short deal)

And boom, were at least a .500+ team in all likelihood

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 08:49 PM
The team that went 90-72 had a Beckett with a sub 3 ERA, which will never happen again even in the NL West. Everyone is getting older, we need youth.

There are additions we can make this year that make us semi relevant in the race for the second spot next year.

For Example:

Cecchini, Brentz, Bard, and Ranaudo for Justin Upton.

Ellsbury for Elvis Andrus (+ maybe)

Sign McCarthy (or another #3ish SP to a short deal)

And boom, were at least a .500+ team in all likelihood

wha...that barely covers the WAR lost from losing AGon, not to mention we need Ells to be ELLS to even have a chance.

SirHizz
08-26-2012, 08:53 PM
Lowrie for a reliever who provided negative WAR
Reddick for a fat injury-prone releiver who will not be used optimally
Took a guy who threw 114 innings last year and stuck him in a less impactful spot for fewer innings.
Youk for ****ing nothing
Turned down a chance to trade CC for Hanley Ramirez and Heath Bell, which would have let us keep AGon.

Wins and losses are the bottom line. 90-72 to 70-92.

Really? You think Theo didn't leave a mess behind? Only because they finished the year 90-72 which was still a huge letdown? 90-72 would have been a disappointing record even if it was good enough for a wildcard-spot.

And only because they produced last year doesn't mean the same happens year after year, baseball isn't linear. You knew that the construct would implode at some point. Maybe Ben didn't have the greatest off-season, but we had basically zero money to work with, thats a bad starting position to be in for every GM, of course it made him look bad.

I'd rather be .500 next season than seeing Beckett for 2 more years and CC for 5 more (even though I like him).
Look at all the predicition-threads from the off-season, almost everyone predicted this team to finish 3rd and missing the playoffs. It's not like this years record is a huge negative surprise.
It wouldn't be different if Theo was still the GM...maybe only if he decided to sell the farm, but I am thankful that Ben refused to do that.

You know what was worse than watching the product on the field? Thinking about all the long term contracts and tied up cap-space for years and years to come.

By the way...a fun fact: Did you know that with A-Gon, Beckett and CC gone, Lackey is the new contract-heavyweight on the team and Dice-K in the top 3, only behind JL and Ortiz? And both guys combined have started a total of like 3-4 games this year?
Well, as of right now, our payroll-commitments for 2013 will be around 45m before arbitration. So let's assume that Ellsbury will be traded and Papi re-signed, we are talking about a payroll of about 80 million (including arbitration)

gcoll
08-26-2012, 09:00 PM
That team went 90-72 and would make the playoffs under this years set-up.

That the current regime did not figure out how to repeat that or even approach it is on them and has nothing to do with who was getting paid what. The team did not pass up attractive options because of finances.

That regime created an atmosphere a billion times more toxic than last year and that is on them.

Ellsbury got hurt. Lester and Beckett pitched like ****.

That's what happened this year. Cherrington made some bad trades, but those crappy trades aren't what resulted in the difference in record.

AI
08-26-2012, 09:01 PM
That team went 90-72 and would make the playoffs under this years set-up.

That the current regime did not figure out how to repeat that or even approach it is on them and has nothing to do with who was getting paid what. The team did not pass up attractive options because of finances.

That regime created an atmosphere a billion times more toxic than last year and that is on them.

It is unfair to look at last years team and compare it to this years.

Let's compare '11 production to that of '12...

Jacoby Ellsbury
'11: .321/.376/.552, .402 wOBA, 150 wRC+, 9.4 fWAR (158 GP)
'12: .266/.314/.365, .305 wOBA, 85 wRC+, 1.0 fWAR (47 GP)

Dustin Pedroia
'11: .307/.387/.474, .377 wOBA, 134 wRC+, 8.0 fWAR (159 GP)
'12: .281/.337/434, .335 wOBA, 106 wRC+, 3.0 fWAR (109 GP)

Adrian Gonzalez
'11: .338/.410/.548, .406 wOBA, 153 wRC+, 6.6 fWAR (159 GP)
'12: .299/.342/.472, .347 wOBA, 114 wRC+, 2.8 fWAR (124 GP)

Josh Beckett
'11: 193.0 IP, 2.89 ERA, 3.57 FIP, 3.58 xFIP, 4.3 fWAR
'12: 127.1 IP, 5.23 ERA, 4.27 FIP, 4.39 xFIP, 1.8 fWAR

David Ortiz has also played in 56 less games this year than he did last year. Based on the value of those 4 players alone, this team lost 19.7 WINS. Yet you wonder why this years team is much worse?

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 09:06 PM
Really? You think Theo didn't leave a mess behind? Only because they finished the year 90-72 which was still a huge letdown? 90-72 would have been a disappointing record even if it was good enough for a wildcard-spot.

And only because they produced last year doesn't mean the same happens year after year, baseball isn't linear. You knew that the construct would implode at some point. Maybe Ben didn't have the greatest off-season, but we had basically zero money to work with(1), thats a bad starting position to be in for every GM, of course it made him look bad.

I'd rather be .500 next season than seeing Beckett for 2 more years and CC for 5 more (even though I like him).
Look at all the predicition-threads from the off-season, almost everyone predicted this team to finish 3rd and missing the playoffs(2). It's not like this years record is a huge negative surprise.
It wouldn't be different if Theo was still the GM...maybe only if he decided to sell the farm, but I am thankful that Ben refused to do that.

You know what was worse than watching the product on the field? Thinking about all the long term contracts and tied up cap-space for years and years to come.

By the way...a fun fact: Did you know that with A-Gon, Beckett and CC gone, Lackey is the new contract-heavyweight on the team and Dice-K in the top 3, only behind JL and Ortiz? And both guys combined have started a total of like 3-4 games this year?
Well, as of right now, our payroll-commitments for 2013 will be around 45m before arbitration. So let's assume that Ellsbury will be traded and Papi re-signed, we are talking about a payroll of about 80 million (including arbitration)(3,4)

1. Not true. Sox went after Oswalt. They kicked tires, they were willing to spend money.

2. Whahh? I've got Edes and McDonald predicting the Sox will make the playoffs on July 13th, 2012. Francona of course said yes...I cant find the comprehensive espn breakdown though

3-4: If you guys are arguing that the Sox are in a better position to make the playoffs 2013-2015 I can absoulutly see the argument, but that's not what Im arguing. Im saying heads should roll for this team losing 20 wins with the same roster it had last year. Implosion or no, how do players keep coming here and underperforming?....and finally all this "We'll find a way to make money work".

people...are forgetting that ALL of baseball is much richer now. The Nats don't have to let Strasberg walk. The Tigers just signed Fielder. Philadelphia is rich now as are the Rangers. Just because the Sox act like ***-clowns, cry poor and trade away everyday players for relievers and are charitable enough to upgrade the White Sox for nothing...doesn't mean everyone else will.

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 09:09 PM
It is unfair to look at last years team and compare it to this years.

Let's compare '11 production to that of '12...

Jacoby Ellsbury
'11: .321/.376/.552, .402 wOBA, 150 wRC+, 9.4 fWAR (158 GP)
'12: .266/.314/.365, .305 wOBA, 85 wRC+, 1.0 fWAR (47 GP)

Dustin Pedroia
'11: .307/.387/.474, .377 wOBA, 134 wRC+, 8.0 fWAR (159 GP)
'12: .281/.337/434, .335 wOBA, 106 wRC+, 3.0 fWAR (109 GP)

Adrian Gonzalez
'11: .338/.410/.548, .406 wOBA, 153 wRC+, 6.6 fWAR (159 GP)
'12: .299/.342/.472, .347 wOBA, 114 wRC+, 2.8 fWAR (124 GP)

Josh Beckett
'11: 193.0 IP, 2.89 ERA, 3.57 FIP, 3.58 xFIP, 4.3 fWAR
'12: 127.1 IP, 5.23 ERA, 4.27 FIP, 4.39 xFIP, 1.8 fWAR

David Ortiz has also played in 56 less games this year than he did last year. Based on the value of those 4 players alone, this team lost 19.7 WINS. Yet you wonder why this years team is much worse?

How does that happen? It wasn't all injuries (and you left out Lesters underperforming) You look at record, you look at the players let go vs the players brought in and you fire people.

And even if you give Cherington a mulligan, what about next year when the Sox lose 85 games or more?

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 09:11 PM
Ellsbury got hurt. Lester and Beckett pitched like ****.

That's what happened this year. Cherrington made some bad trades, but those crappy trades aren't what resulted in the difference in record.

Then what has that got to do with Crawford, Beckett and Agon. You try again next year.

Nomar
08-26-2012, 09:13 PM
wha...that barely covers the WAR lost from losing AGon, not to mention we need Ells to be ELLS to even have a chance.

Gonzalez and Upton had almost the same WAR in 2011, and both have underperformed this year.

Andrus alone will have a 4.5+ WAR, something Jacoby will probably match, but we will have Bradley up mid-year.

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 09:16 PM
Gonzalez and Upton had almost the same WAR in 2011, and both have underperformed this year.

Andrus alone will have a 4.5+ WAR, something Jacoby will probably match, but we will have Bradley up mid-year.

Not what I heard on Bradley and you all are making some good points...but I still want Cherington and LL fired, might as well fire BV too.

Nomar
08-26-2012, 09:23 PM
Not what I heard on Bradley and you all are making some good points...but I still want Cherington and LL fired, might as well fire BV too.

If its true that this trade was LL, then Cherington still hasnt gotten his fair shot at things yet. I also like that he was the director of the farm system because it leads me to think he will value brining young guys up through our own system more than he will going out and signing guys to huge deals.

LL and BV id be happy to see gone.

On Bradley: SoxProspects.com has him starting next season in Pawtucket and since he has been a fast riser thus far, i assume he will be ready by the trade deadline. But then again we cant just count on him to be ready then. His ETA is "Late 2013", but then again WMB's was "Late 2012," and we all know how that played out. Not saying Bradley will destroy like WMB was, but i think he will do well in AAA.

gcoll
08-26-2012, 09:24 PM
Then what has that got to do with Crawford, Beckett and Agon. You try again next year.
I would have been on board with that.

But I'm not too bummed about being able to dump Crawford.

AI
08-26-2012, 09:28 PM
How does that happen? It wasn't all injuries (and you left out Lesters underperforming) You look at record, you look at the players let go vs the players brought in and you fire people.

And even if you give Cherington a mulligan, what about next year when the Sox lose 85 games or more?

I know I left out Lester, and players let go?

Reddick, much like he did last year, got off to a scorching start but has plummeted down to earth recently.

Look at his '11 vs his '12

2011 with Boston .280/.327/.457, 107 OPS+
2012 with Oakland .252/.321/.484, 121 OPS+

Look at his monthly splits (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=reddijo01&year=2012&t=b), notice an outlier? He went bonkers in May, but everything else falls right in line with his usual numbers. Also, his August has been brutal as he's only hitting .202/.244/.333 with a .578 OPS.

Lowrie? Well, he also got off to a hot start like he did last year, then guess what? He got hurt and has not been heard of since.

Melancon has completely imploded, Bailey got hurt and should be the closer for '13 if healthy, that remains to be his only problem but it's a nice arm to have at the back-end of the bullpen.

It's easy to look back and second guess Ben, but at the time of the Reddick trade, we had no place for Josh on our team. Not to mention, that we had a clear need to replace both Bard and Papelbon. It didn't work out, most times, bullpen trades never do, but he's bounced back and stockpiled some very nice arms down in our farm system.

We hated the Scutaro deal, but he did say that he felt that Aviles could match/exceed Scutaro's production this year, Aviles has done just that. Mortensen has been a valuable arm that still has options, and we invested the money saved on Cody Ross who's been terrific this year.

We gave up Youk for nothing? Had to be done, addition by substraction. He was not part of our future, and nobody else would give us anything of any value. We had to clear room for Middlebrooks to play everyday.

After this Dodgers trade, I have much more faith in Ben and our FO than I did before the trade.

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 09:33 PM
If its true that this trade was LL, then Cherington still hasnt gotten his fair shot at things yet. I also like that he was the director of the farm system because it leads me to think he will value brining young guys up through our own system more than he will going out and signing guys to huge deals.

LL and BV id be happy to see gone.

On Bradley: SoxProspects.com has him starting next season in Pawtucket and since he has been a fast riser thus far, i assume he will be ready by the trade deadline. But then again we cant just count on him to be ready then. His ETA is "Late 2013", but then again WMB's was "Late 2012," and we all know how that played out. Not saying Bradley will destroy like WMB was, but i think he will do well in AAA.

There's just too many holes not enough sure things like an AGon or Manny. I tried to put together a team and there's too many holes. Too many players like WMB who we still are wary about, Ellsbury who we wonder still if 2011 was a fluke. I like the Andrus idea because he's what I call a 'sure thing'. But don't want to trade our lottery ticket in Ells for him.

I cant even begin to think who we get to play 1B, management will probably bring in a scrub vet like Carlos Pena.

No clue on LF. I don't think Kalish will ever be viable.

I have no faith in Salty or Lavarnaway.

Every pitcher on the staff is mallable.

Ross needs to be platooned.

What a mess.

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 09:37 PM
Josh Reddick will outWAR the entire Red Sox team by almost 1.0

Nomar
08-26-2012, 09:39 PM
Josh Reddick will outWAR the entire Red Sox team by almost 1.0

Pedroia might catch up to him, especially if Reddick keeps up his terrible play.

Reddick is going to be a 3 WAR player probably. Not bad, but not an all star. He shouldve been one this year with that crazy may he had.

AI
08-26-2012, 09:42 PM
It's a bold move, considering how much major league talent they're sending to L.A., and the potential for one of Beckett and/or Crawford to bounce back after the deal, but, frankly, it was way too good for the team to pass up. It looks as if Larry Lucchino overreacted to some bad publicity but GM Ben Cherington and his group rode in to restructure this into a very sound baseball deal.

Declining TV ratings, the Sox upper brass goes all out and gets A-Gon and Crawford, 2 years later, in comes Ben to fix the mess. Atleast that is what Keith Law is getting at.

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 09:48 PM
Well you all have brought me around from "The worst decision ever made in baseball" to:

It's a coin-flip if it were smarter than going with CC and Beckett as lottery tickets.

But like I said, it doesn't take into account the changing culture of baseball where you can't get AGons or Abreau's or Mannys or Schillings on the FA market or in dumps as easily as before.

GoldDustTwin
08-26-2012, 09:49 PM
I feel like the Sox have pulled off a huge con job and great tracts of RSN have lapped it up.

"You can't hold us accountable, because....ta-daaaa! we made two bad contracts disapeer and now you have no expectations until 2014-2015! TADAAA" Just like a good magician or slick-talking politician.

(RSN applauds) "We like shiny fireworks!!"


This year's "Play the GM" threads will be hilarious. I predict a good third of them say "Trade for King Felix"

I'll give you mine right now.: "Fire Valentine, Cherington and Luchhino"


They have pulled a gigantic con job.

They convinced the Dodgers to accept:
1) The worst contract in baseball (Crawford's) - Giant's fans may disagree.
2) One of the worst teammates in baseball, toxic clubhouse presence who practically mutinied against his employers (Beckett).
3) They convinced the Dodgers to pay for 95% of it.

The cost was Adrian Gonzalez.

We got a couple of good looking prospects.

Sorry, deals like this don't happen - ever. Salary dumps never net you anything good in return and how we're not paying 50% of Beckett and Crawford is a minor miracle.

These aren't "shiny fireworks" that's smart stewardship of a baseball club - get out from under the albatross contracts, clear out a major clubhouse problem, financial flexibility, strengthen farm. Sorry, the fireworks are much brighter in LA - they got the stars, we got smart.

They'll clear out the coaching ranks entirely in October.

They'll get a good draft pick in next year's draft and probably vault themselves into one of the best 5 farms in Baseball.

They'll have, literally, more than they've ever had before to spend on contracts.

So, I'm not sure how any of the above is meant to stay the fan's expectations until 2 - 3 years.

Expectations will be huge - for them to build a team intelligently, to spend all that cash wisely and the chose good managers, players, etc.

Sorry, I don't see this at all like you do.

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 09:59 PM
I would only argue that the Dodgers have made a mistake. We all *know* CC, Beckett and AGon will thrive in LaLa land. That's just how it works. And by thrive for CC and Beckett, I mean do better than anyone thought they would here.

And another reason i want those guys fired is....we gotta do something about this whole toxic enviroment that is Boston baseball. all this 'not a good fit here'. Talk about hamstringing a club. The fanbase, the media, the FO structure. Who is going to want to play here anymore? All those teams that players used to want to leave and come to Boston are getting better.

I see no reason why this club couldn't fall to Cubs level for the next 20 years.

Nomar
08-26-2012, 10:01 PM
Well you all have brought me around from "The worst decision ever made in baseball" to:

It's a coin-flip if it were smarter than going with CC and Beckett as lottery tickets.

But like I said, it doesn't take into account the changing culture of baseball where you can't get AGons or Abreau's or Mannys or Schillings on the FA market or in dumps as easily as before.

One thing that is important to remember is that AGon was a trade. Also, Schilling also was an aging pitcher, so there was risk there.

It seems to be that free agency is stupid. All the big name players that get to free agency are aging and risky. They all want 7-10 year deals.

Say what you want about his lack of power during the first half, but AGon was worth his deal. As a pure hitter, he is great. He wouldve been a good DH whenever the time came for that as well. His contract was a good deal for Boston.

But im getting off track a bit. My point here is that if you want to lock a guy up to a deal that makes sense, do it by trading for a guy, not waiting until free agency.

We could trade for Upton this year and if he plays well next season, we could extend him mid way through the year until 2022. It wouldnt be cheap, but he would be a free agent at 35, and at least we wouldnt be paying a geezer 20 million to do basically nothing like LA will do with Pujols and Cincy will with Votto.

AI
08-26-2012, 10:05 PM
They have pulled a gigantic con job.

They convinced the Dodgers to accept:
1) The worst contract in baseball (Crawford's) - Giant's fans may disagree.
2) One of the worst teammates in baseball, toxic clubhouse presence who practically mutinied against his employers (Beckett).
3) They convinced the Dodgers to pay for 95% of it.

The cost was Adrian Gonzalez.

We got a couple of good looking prospects.

Sorry, deals like this don't happen - ever. Salary dumps never net you anything good in return and how we're not paying 50% of Beckett and Crawford is a minor miracle.

These aren't "shiny fireworks" that's smart stewardship of a baseball club - get out from under the albatross contracts, clear out a major clubhouse problem, financial flexibility, strengthen farm. Sorry, the fireworks are much brighter in LA - they got the stars, we got smart.

They'll clear out the coaching ranks entirely in October.

They'll get a good draft pick in next year's draft and probably vault themselves into one of the best 5 farms in Baseball.

They'll have, literally, more than they've ever had before to spend on contracts.

So, I'm not sure how any of the above is meant to stay the fan's expectations until 2 - 3 years.

Expectations will be huge - for them to build a team intelligently, to spend all that cash wisely and the chose good managers, players, etc.

Sorry, I don't see this at all like you do.

This.

Not to mention, young cost-controlled talent is on the way so the financial flexibility we do have we'll be able to use on filling holes with capable players. This team will soon have a very good nucleus of young talent in Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, Bradley, Brentz, Barnes, Buchholz to go along with a strong group of veterans in Pedroia, Lester, Ortiz, etc.

I'm sorry, but I fully understand why this move was made. I'm seeing the big picture, which is that this organization is in a much better position going forward than it was before the trade. There was a clear shift in philosophy, the correct one too, instead of being buyers we need to get back to developing through the farm and trades.

Kudos to Ben and Larry, you've regained my trust in you.

Pavelb1
08-26-2012, 10:17 PM
This.

Not to mention, young cost-controlled talent is on the way so the financial flexibility we do have we'll be able to use on filling holes with capable players. This team will soon have a very good nucleus of young talent in Middlebrooks, Bogaerts, Bradley, Brentz, Barnes, Buchholz to go along with a strong group of veterans in Pedroia, Lester, Ortiz, etc.

I'm sorry, but I fully understand why this move was made. I'm seeing the big picture, which is that this organization is in a much better position going forward than it was before the trade. There was a clear shift in philosophy, the correct one too, instead of being buyers we need to get back to developing through the farm and trades.

Kudos to Ben and Larry, you've regained my trust in you.

The idea of not signing FAs to long contracts is impractible and irresponsible from a org like the Red Sox and it needlessly throws away an advantage.

You don't want to sign a Lackey or Crawford? Well duhhh...everyone here said that was cra-cra.

You don't want to resign your stars knowing they'll be lottery tickets like Lowell and Beckett and Ortiz? You have to have some lottery tickets.

And it's just dumb not to commit to HOF talent like Manny or Matt Holliday. Because I assure you, in this changing culture of baseball...it's going to be you and the Astros sitting on their hands. I'll bet even KC would start to pony up if they can get up to .500. mo money mo money mo money...that's baseball right now.

AI
08-26-2012, 10:43 PM
Sure, that's baseball right now, but is it winning baseball for an extended period of time? Player development ensures that you stay competitive for longer. If players like Holliday, etc. are available and you feel that they are worth it, then you flex the financial muscle but to spend because you can is not a very responsible way to run an organization.

AI
08-26-2012, 10:59 PM
Point being, I'd much rather build through the draft rather than being a buyer every offseason. Focus on player development and build a strong farm system that allows us to trade for players we'd be able to build around (See: Justin Upton). Use the financial advantage to sign them to extensions and keep them, rather than signing aging/declining players through free agency to ludicrous contracts and losing a draft pick in the process.

GoldDustTwin
08-27-2012, 12:04 AM
Sure, that's baseball right now, but is it winning baseball for an extended period of time? Player development ensures that you stay competitive for longer. If players like Holliday, etc. are available and you feel that they are worth it, then you flex the financial muscle but to spend because you can is not a very responsible way to run an organization.

Let's continue the mutual admiration society.

This sentiment is spot on.

Currently, in baseball, there may be a "mo money" etc., sentiment but it isn't winning baseball long term. The Red Sox should be (one of) the shining object lessons of the fault of that way of thinking.
Viz - 2011 Cardinals: MLB's 12 highest salary. 2010 Giants: 9th highest.

This year, of the teams with the 10 highest salaries only three appear assured of the playoffs, while four (Boston, Philly, Milwaukee and Miami) aren't making it at all, the other three are marginal; possible wildcards.
So while it may be a "mo money" league, money only makes you look good on paper.

This thread seems to suggest that as a result of these contracts being shed the Red Sox have relegated themselves to penury, losing records and diminished expectations - I don't believe it's a feast or famine proposition;
We won't be the Astros with a $35 million payroll, nor (I hope) will we become again the bloated monster we were, replying to the Yankees latest multi-year $100 million contract with 2 of our own. We were participating in some sort of Cold War-style arms race with New York that we were never going to win and that was doing bad things to our club - I suppose we did assure our own (self) destruction though.

Pavelb1
08-27-2012, 12:18 AM
You guys have the right structure, but you're being a little hard on the Sox with bloated monster and all that. Just one decision..ONE...don't sign Crawford and we're not even having this convo. The record would probably still be bad, but we'd be talking about the underperforming pitchers and injurys. Sign Holliday instead of Lackey and Crawford and barring injuries we're talking about who we can buy at the trade deadline to insure a spot or grab the division title.

If the Yankees claim AGon on waivers out of spite, we arn't having this convo. (Sox pull him back of course) We're talking about trading ells, and shopping Beckett in the off-season.

I don't think it was so much 'bloated monster' as a perfect storm (oh the irony) of ****.

Also, when I say 'mo money' I mean we can't count on pillaging teams with bankrupt owners and poor records anymore. WE are the ones being pillaged.

GoldDustTwin
08-27-2012, 12:39 AM
You guys have the right structure, but you're being a little hard on the Sox with bloated monster and all that. Just one decision..ONE...don't sign Crawford and we're not even having this convo. The record would probably still be bad, but we'd be talking about the underperforming pitchers and injurys. Sign Holliday instead of Lackey and Crawford and barring injuries we're talking about who we can buy at the trade deadline to insure a spot or grab the division title.

If the Yankees claim AGon on waivers out of spite, we arn't having this convo. (Sox pull him back of course) We're talking about trading ells, and shopping Beckett in the off-season.

I don't think it was so much 'bloated monster' as a perfect storm (oh the irony) of ****.

Also, when I say 'mo money' I mean we can't count on pillaging teams with bankrupt owners and poor records anymore. WE are the ones being pillaged.

I agree that the Crawford contract was the tipping point (I'll keep the novel- title ball rolling). We didn't get him to fill any glaring need and he had no apparent fit in the batting order - it was a move about money (we had it), TV ratings (we wanted more), sellout streaks (keep it going) and fear (what if someone else - Yankees - get him?).

And yes, Gonzalez clearing wavers was lucky - but luck is always going to play a role in these deals.

I didn't see it so much us getting pillaged as much as I saw it as the ballclub taking the most positive route to getting out from under the worst contract in baseball and getting rid of the worst influence in our clubhouse. The fact that we had to part ways with our best player in the process shows how bad the Crawford contract was, and just how badly they wanted Beckett out of Boston.

GoldDustTwin
08-27-2012, 12:41 AM
I should also say that I think this is the FO's way of belatedly dealing with last September.

They did a superficial - and morally bankrupt - job of it in the offseason with the firing of Francona. But they did nothing to change the culture or direction of this club.
This deal begins to do both.

AI
08-27-2012, 01:18 AM
I'm sure everybody here can agree that not signing Holliday in favor of bringing in Lackey and Cameron was the start of our self-destruction, but it's a conversation that never leads anywhere, just a big "what if".

Trading for A-Gon and signing him to the extension he got in comparison to the contracts other premier 1B's got (Fielder, Pujols, Votto) was tremendous value. However, any points they get for doing this go out the window for the Crawford contract, and to a smaller extent, the Beckett extension. Did we want to keep Gonzo? Obviously, but he had to be sacrificed in order to steer this organization in the right direction.

Face it, we were stuck in a position that the trade absolutely needed to be done. Such an opportunity was never going to present itself again. Our farm is loaded with potential "impact bat" position players at the upper levels and they've done a nice job stockpiling arms the last 2 drafts, through trades and via international free agency. We are not going to become the Astros, any fan that believes that deserves to be called a moron. Will we be a favorite in 2013? No, but that doesn't mean that we are not a playoff team if the corresponding moves after this massive trade are the correct ones. Next moves will likely be trading Ellsbury, Aviles and others away. Hopefully Jacoby brings in a legit haul as well.

Come 2014, Xander, Brentz, Bradley, Barnes, Webster and others WILL be up. That's a lot of holes filled with cost controlled, high-ceiling talent. The fact that we'll have mountains of cash to fill any glaring "weakness" on our roster is a result of the tremendous job our front office has done to put our team in a great position going forward by clearing such a significant amount of future payroll.

Nomar
08-27-2012, 09:23 AM
I'm sure everybody here can agree that not signing Holliday in favor of bringing in Lackey and Cameron was the start of our self-destruction, but it's a conversation that never leads anywhere, just a big "what if".

Trading for A-Gon and signing him to the extension he got in comparison to the contracts other premier 1B's got (Fielder, Pujols, Votto) was tremendous value. However, any points they get for doing this go out the window for the Crawford contract, and to a smaller extent, the Beckett extension. Did we want to keep Gonzo? Obviously, but he had to be sacrificed in order to steer this organization in the right direction.

Face it, we were stuck in a position that the trade absolutely needed to be done. Such an opportunity was never going to present itself again. Our farm is loaded with potential "impact bat" position players at the upper levels and they've done a nice job stockpiling arms the last 2 drafts, through trades and via international free agency. We are not going to become the Astros, any fan that believes that deserves to be called a moron. Will we be a favorite in 2013? No, but that doesn't mean that we are not a playoff team if the corresponding moves after this massive trade are the correct ones. Next moves will likely be trading Ellsbury, Aviles and others away. Hopefully Jacoby brings in a legit haul as well.

Come 2014, Xander, Brentz, Bradley, Barnes, Webster and others WILL be up. That's a lot of holes filled with cost controlled, high-ceiling talent. The fact that we'll have mountains of cash to fill any glaring "weakness" on our roster is a result of the tremendous job our front office has done to put our team in a great position going forward by clearing such a significant amount of future payroll.

We see this exactly the same.