PDA

View Full Version : Red Sox waving 'white flag' for 2010?


Fenway
12-10-2009, 08:49 AM
Curious moves in Boston

Shaughnessey explodes


http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/12/10/fans_shouldnt_buy_red_sox_bridge/?page=full


Mike Lowell appears gone

http://bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view/20091210mike_lowell_on_block_eyes_on_adrian_beltre _red_sox_face_third_and_2/srvc=home&position=4

DirtySox
12-10-2009, 08:53 AM
Bull.

The Red Sox can and will contend. What in heaven will they do if they don't acquire Bay/Holliday/Halladay?

spawn
12-10-2009, 08:54 AM
Seems Shaughnessey has channeled his inner Mariotti.

soxfanatlanta
12-10-2009, 09:04 AM
Seems Shaughnessey has channeled his inner Mariotti.

:D:

Fenway - your Sawx will be fine.

Noneck
12-10-2009, 09:10 AM
Hope it is true, couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of zealots.

Lundind1
12-10-2009, 09:20 AM
Again, it is one of those let it play out kinda things. Everybody thought the Sox were dead when they dumped Pedro. Looks like they are freshening up the lineup and getting things that will help them contend for a while.

asindc
12-10-2009, 09:40 AM
Again, it is one of those let it play out kinda things. Everybody thought the Sox were dead when they dumped Pedro. Looks like they are freshening up the lineup and getting things that will help them contend for a while.

The Sox had Pedro?:scratch:

spawn
12-10-2009, 09:43 AM
The Sox had Pedro?:scratch:
No kidding. I must have been drunk the entire season to have missed that. :shrug:

Fenway
12-10-2009, 09:50 AM
Red Sox acquire P Boof Bonser from Twins for player to be named; he missed 2009 (shoulder surgery)

Truth is money is tight at Fenway. People in the front office have been let go and not replaced.

Signage deals are being offered at bargain rates, NESN viewership was way down last year, and JWH's personal wealth has shrunk.

The NYTimes has been shopping their 17 percent with no takers and JWH doesn't have the cash to buy out the Times. Their NASCAR deal is also bleeding millions.

They are also terrified Congress may allow a-la-carte cable pricing which would cause NESN to lose 70% of its value.

They also have scrapped the most important phase of the renovation which would have replaced the grandstand seats that date to 1934 and sent Janet Marie Smith packing.

I think they gearing up to sell the team.

SOXSINCE'70
12-10-2009, 09:58 AM
Can The Yankmees please implode now?

asindc
12-10-2009, 10:01 AM
Red Sox acquire P Boof Bonser from Twins for player to be named; he missed 2009 (shoulder surgery)

Truth is money is tight at Fenway. People in the front office have been let go and not replaced.

Signage deals are being offered at bargain rates, NESN viewership was way down last year, and JWH's personal wealth has shrunk.

The NYTimes has been shopping their 17 percent with no takers and JWH doesn't have the cash to buy out the Times. Their NASCAR deal is also bleeding millions.

They are also terrified Congress may allow a-la-carte cable pricing which would cause NESN to lose 70% of its value.

They also have scrapped the most important phase of the renovation which would have replaced the grandstand seats that date to 1934 and sent Janet Marie Smith packing.

I think they gearing up to sell the team.

Not that I wish financial doldrums on your Sawx, but I do think having a team fall from the ranks of the spend-it-no-matter-what elites will be good for the overall financial health of the sport. No matter what some might argue, the NFL works so well because the revenue is more evenly distributed. The Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers would have virtually little chance to compete if they operated under MLB's financial structure. Yes, I realize that the TV money by nature has to be distributed differently, but having a cap exposes the rich but badly managed teams (see Washington ___skins) in a way MLB's financial structure does not (see the number of busts that BOS, LAAAAA, and NYY have been able to buy themselves out of in recent years).

RedHeadPaleHoser
12-10-2009, 10:45 AM
The Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers would have virtually little chance to compete if they operated under MLB's financial structure.

My only disagreement with your whole statement is these two teams in particular. Both of these teams are legacy based with a huge fan base. I think NFL teams like the Chiefs and Cardinals would be more inclined to suffer were the revenue sharing package to go away. Aside from that, I agree with your original post.

doublem23
12-10-2009, 11:28 AM
Not that I wish financial doldrums on your Sawx, but I do think having a team fall from the ranks of the spend-it-no-matter-what elites will be good for the overall financial health of the sport. No matter what some might argue, the NFL works so well because the revenue is more evenly distributed. The Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers would have virtually little chance to compete if they operated under MLB's financial structure. Yes, I realize that the TV money by nature has to be distributed differently, but having a cap exposes the rich but badly managed teams (see Washington ___skins) in a way MLB's financial structure does not (see the number of busts that BOS, LAAAAA, and NYY have been able to buy themselves out of in recent years).

And yet, there has been greater parity of MLB World Series winners this decade than Super Bowl Champions.

asindc
12-10-2009, 11:50 AM
And yet, there has been greater parity of MLB World Series winners this decade than Super Bowl Champions.

And yet, the Yanks and Boston each have only missed the playoffs once this decade, while LAAAA has only missed the playoffs twice this decade. As has been noted numerous times on numerous baseball sites, television programs, radio programs, and in print media, once you get to the playoffs, the prospects are different. The issue is that the economic disparity gives a few select teams an inherent advantage throughout the course of any given 162-game regular season. In essence, they can spend their way out of their mistakes in ways most other teams cannot.

moochpuppy
12-10-2009, 12:11 PM
Mike Lowell appears gone

http://bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view/20091210mike_lowell_on_block_eyes_on_adrian_beltre _red_sox_face_third_and_2/srvc=home&position=4

I actually think this is a nice move by the Red Sox. They get a young talented catcher for the future and now they can and will go after Beltre for 3B.

Lundind1
12-10-2009, 02:08 PM
The Sox had Pedro?:scratch:

That was the RED Sox. Lord, what is this thread about?

Lundind1
12-10-2009, 02:11 PM
No kidding. I must have been drunk the entire season to have missed that. :shrug:
Ha ha ha, funny. Wrong Sox.

Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Mart%C3%ADnez

Hopefully that will spell it out.

I was trying to say that a bunch of people thought the Red Sox were going to go down the tubes without Pedro as their #1. They retooled their lineup and won the 2004 world series.

Lundind1
12-10-2009, 02:14 PM
And yet, the Yanks and Boston each have only missed the playoffs once this decade, while LAAAA has only missed the playoffs twice this decade. As has been noted numerous times on numerous baseball sites, television programs, radio programs, and in print media, once you get to the playoffs, the prospects are different. The issue is that the economic disparity gives a few select teams an inherent advantage throughout the course of any given 162-game regular season. In essence, they can spend their way out of their mistakes in ways most other teams cannot.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to take anything away from the Angels, but it is not like that AL West has been that great in the last few years.

spawn
12-10-2009, 02:17 PM
That was the RED Sox. Lord, what is this thread about?
If you're going to call a team the Sox around here, it's the White Sox. If you want to abbreviate the Red Sox, then call them the Sawx. That's an unwritten rule around here. You obviously didn't get the memo.

EMachine10
12-10-2009, 02:43 PM
This is why people hate the Red Sox.

tm1119
12-10-2009, 02:50 PM
They are fine. When they wind up with Beltre and 1 of Bay/Holiday no one will be crying poor. Its still very early in the offseason. Lowell is old and way too injury prone anyway. At worst they could stay play Youk at 3B and Martinez at 1B.

getonbckthr
12-10-2009, 03:43 PM
I wonder if Max Ramirez will be shipped off to Toronto as part of a package for Halladay?

soxfan43
12-10-2009, 03:58 PM
Getting rid of Lowell isn't a bad move. The guy is only getting older and with Victor you can play him at first more and move Youk to third if you don't add Beltre. Money can't be that tight if they are paying 9mill of Lowell's salary in 2010.

Lundind1
12-10-2009, 04:00 PM
If you're going to call a team the Sox around here, it's the White Sox. If you want to abbreviate the Red Sox, then call them the Sawx. That's an unwritten rule around here. You obviously didn't get the memo.

My opologies. I did not know that.

PKalltheway
12-10-2009, 04:12 PM
And yet, the Yanks and Boston each have only missed the playoffs once this decade, while LAAAA has only missed the playoffs twice this decade. As has been noted numerous times on numerous baseball sites, television programs, radio programs, and in print media, once you get to the playoffs, the prospects are different. The issue is that the economic disparity gives a few select teams an inherent advantage throughout the course of any given 162-game regular season. In essence, they can spend their way out of their mistakes in ways most other teams cannot.
Not to be too picky, but Boston has missed the playoffs four times since 2000 (2000-2002, 2006) and the Angels have also missed out four times in that same timespan(2000, 2001, 2003, 2006).

asindc
12-10-2009, 05:00 PM
Not to be too picky, but Boston has missed the playoffs four times since 2000 (2000-2002, 2006) and the Angels have also missed out four times in that same timespan(2000, 2001, 2003, 2006).

I stand corrected. My original point stands, however. Each given season give many more NFL teams a realistic chance to make the playoffs. MLB? Not so much.

Pablo_Honey
12-10-2009, 05:33 PM
I stand corrected. My original point stands, however. Each given season give many more NFL teams a realistic chance to make the playoffs. MLB? Not so much.

I guess it depends on the divisions. Let's see how future might look for all divisions: (By the way, this is my personal opinion) AL East, everyone knows from day one it's either Yanks or Sawx with some recent challenge from Rays (This is the only division where parity is non-existent) AL Central, every team but the Royals is in it. AL West, Angels is the dominant team but we may see Rangers and Mariners in the mix in the future. NL East, it's the Phillies though other teams except Natinals could potentially take it from them. NL Central, all teams but Reds and Pirates though Cards are likely to be at the top for a while. NL West, all teams but Padres have a realistic shot at postseason.

I don't follow NFL so I can't compare it to MLB but the way I see it, the competitive balance is not so bad in MLB as some portray it to be. I mean, yeah, there are teams like the Pirates and Royals that seem to be in infinite free-fall but that has more to do with unbelievably stupid and confusing decisions from the management as opposed to lack of resources. Money may influence draft picks but the Rays have built a nice team through drafts and those draft picks weren't all that cheap.

asindc
12-10-2009, 05:47 PM
I guess it depends on the divisions. Let's see how future might look for all divisions: (By the way, this is my personal opinion) AL East, everyone knows from day one it's either Yanks or Sawx with some recent challenge from Rays (This is the only division where parity is non-existent) AL Central, every team but the Royals is in it. AL West, Angels is the dominant team but we may see Rangers and Mariners in the mix in the future. NL East, it's the Phillies though other teams except Natinals could potentially take it from them. NL Central, all teams but Reds and Pirates though Cards are likely to be at the top for a while. NL West, all teams but Padres have a realistic shot at postseason.

I don't follow NFL so I can't compare it to MLB but the way I see it, the competitive balance is not so bad in MLB as some portray it to be. I mean, yeah, there are teams like the Pirates and Royals that seem to be in infinite free-fall but that has more to do with unbelievably stupid and confusing decisions from the management as opposed to lack of resources. Money may influence draft picks but the Rays have built a nice team through drafts and those draft picks weren't all that cheap.

I understand your point, but my response is that there is no AL East in any other league, and there are no Pirates, Royals, O's, and Blue Jays, in the NFL. What I mean by that is no matter how well the O's, for instance, are managed, they have to have every fall in place to overtake NYY or Boston in any given season. In the NFL, NBA, and NHL, on the other hand, well-managed teams more often than not at least make the playoffs, becuase there are no financial juggernauts who can spend their way out of their mistakes to block other teams' path.

PKalltheway
12-10-2009, 06:03 PM
I understand your point, but my response is that there is no AL East in any other league, and there are no Pirates, Royals, O's, and Blue Jays, in the NFL. What I mean by that is no matter how well the O's, for instance, are managed, they have to have every fall in place to overtake NYY or Boston in any given season. In the NFL, NBA, and NHL, on the other hand, well-managed teams more often than not at least make the playoffs, becuase there are no financial juggernauts who can spend their way out of their mistakes to block other teams' path.
What is it that you would like for baseball to do, then? A hard salary cap is simply unfeasible because you would be asking a team like the Marlins or Pirates to spend a greater portion of their total revenue to compete. Not to mention that the salary structure is completely different in baseball than it is in the NFL.

As far as the NBA? I laugh out loud when people say there is parity. There have only been eight different NBA champions since 1980. There have been eight in baseball in this decade alone. There's only "parity" in the NBA because you have a ridiculous amount of teams making the playoffs every year. Making the playoffs in the NBA is not nearly as big of an accomplishment as it is in MLB.

You could increase revenue sharing, or you could increase the luxury tax, or do both. So what is it that you would like to see baseball do to curtail this?

asindc
12-10-2009, 09:20 PM
What is it that you would like for baseball to do, then? A hard salary cap is simply unfeasible because you would be asking a team like the Marlins or Pirates to spend a greater portion of their total revenue to compete. Not to mention that the salary structure is completely different in baseball than it is in the NFL.

As far as the NBA? I laugh out loud when people say there is parity. There have only been eight different NBA champions since 1980. There have been eight in baseball in this decade alone. There's only "parity" in the NBA because you have a ridiculous amount of teams making the playoffs every year. Making the playoffs in the NBA is not nearly as big of an accomplishment as it is in MLB.

You could increase revenue sharing, or you could increase the luxury tax, or do both. So what is it that you would like to see baseball do to curtail this?

I would like to see baseball implement the following:

1) A salary floor;

2) A soft salary cap similar to the NBA's, in which teams would have matching rights for any free agent to be and be allowed to go over the cap to retain any current player;

3) Revenue sharing adjusted to reflect annual fluctuations in local TV and radio ratings. If NYY suffers a decrease in ratings one year, the next year's revenue sharing should reflect that.

Your point about the NBA does not take into account that no one, fan of NBA or not, thinks that teams like Memphis and LAC cannot win because of economic disparity within the league. Everyone knows there is no reason for their mediocrity other than they have been badly managed, and they know this because they have the same opportunity to sign FAs and retain current players as everyone else in the league.

I will summarize my point here: MLB is the only league in which a few select teams have a substantial economic advantage primarily because of the sheer fortune of geography, with no preset limits on spending. The economic disparity based on geography distorts the very nature of competition. Those select teams have a significant advantage over all the other teams in the league for a reason that has nothing to do with merit. This simply does not happen in other sports. If it did, the Knicks, the Giants, and the Rangers would have more money to spend than any other teams in their leagues, and you would probably see similar results.