Celtics Blog Forums

Other Discussions => Other / General Sports => Red Sox / MLB => Topic started by: rocknrollforyoursoul on December 04, 2012, 06:30:15 PM

Title: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on December 04, 2012, 06:30:15 PM
Per ESPN Boston (http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/8710359/shane-victorino-boston-red-sox-close-contract-source):

Quote
The Boston Red Sox reached a three-year, $39 million agreement with free-agent outfielder Shane Victorino on Tuesday, according to a source with direct knowledge of the negotiations.

The deal is pending a physical.

The terms of the agreement are exactly the same as the deal Boston reached with free-agent first baseman/catcher Mike Napoli on Monday.

The 32-year-old Victorino, traded in midseason from the Philadelphia Phillies to the Los Angeles Dodgers, had a down season. He batted a combined .255 with 11 homers, 55 RBIs and a .704 OPS.

Victorino adds speed, Napoli power, but are they enough? Are they the right pieces?

What do you guys think about these moves?
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Mattybriand on December 04, 2012, 06:45:23 PM
Not a fan of victorino.. That is all :-\

Call me crazy but I'd offer Josh Hamilton 4 years
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: hpantazo on December 04, 2012, 07:00:10 PM
I'd go all out for Josh Hamilton as well, although they need a top tier starting pitcher more imo.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: ScottHow on December 04, 2012, 07:04:40 PM
Paid waaaaaaaaaaaay too much.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: gpap on December 04, 2012, 07:49:07 PM
I don't really care for either move. Both players are complimentary players, NOT players that will help win a world series.

I too would've gone after Hamilton and if they didn't sign him, I would've gone after Swisher. Swisher proved he can play in the AL East the past 3 years with the Yanks.

Speaking of former Yankees, I also would've rather had Russell Martin over Napoli.

Boo to both moves!
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: jambr380 on December 04, 2012, 08:52:34 PM
Paid waaaaaaaaaaaay too much.

I agree, but that is how it works today in the FA market. Also, the deals are only for three years, so they won't hamper us forever. Victorino certainly isn't worth the money, but I am a huge fan of his attitude and think he will help bring back the old Red Sox personality.

And, yes, count me in as someone who would have gone all out for Josh Hamilton. We could have looked at it like a Gonzalez for Hamilton 'trade', while dumping some bad contracts in the process.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Roy H. on December 04, 2012, 08:57:14 PM
I'd rather have Adrian Gonzalez than Napoli + Victorino.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: gpap on December 04, 2012, 09:07:54 PM
I'd rather have Adrian Gonzalez than Napoli + Victorino.

Eh, I never really got into Gonzalez. He seemed like a National League player not cut out for Boston.

I would've rather they went after Prince Fielder a couple  years ago. Sure, defense is weak but what a bat. I think he would've been a better fit in Boston than Gonzalez
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: AB_Celtic on December 04, 2012, 09:10:44 PM
Buster Olney ‏@Buster_ESPN
Rival officials believe that the Red Sox are laying the groundwork for a trade of Jacoby Ellsbury, for the pitching they need.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: nickagneta on December 04, 2012, 09:20:01 PM
Napoli and Victorino are mid level talent at best and yet they both get 8 figure salaries for three years each.

Sorry, but this is some of the absolutely stupidest signings I have seen this team make since the days of the Lou Gorman Sox. $13 million a year for mediocre at best level talent is a huge waste of money.

The Sox are going to be another last place team again next year that will have a huge payroll because they are giving star money to role playing players at best.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: gpap on December 04, 2012, 09:41:40 PM
Napoli and Victorino are mid level talent at best and yet they both get 8 figure salaries for three years each.

Sorry, but this is some of the absolutely stupidest signings I have seen this team make since the days of the Lou Gorman Sox. $13 million a year for mediocre at best level talent is a huge waste of money.

The Sox are going to be another last place team again next year that will have a huge payroll because they are giving star money to role playing players at best.

Yup. When you add up the money they spent on Victorino, Napoli, Ross, Ryan Gomes and Ortiz, they could've signed Hamilton and Greinke
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: hpantazo on December 04, 2012, 09:44:11 PM
Napoli and Victorino are mid level talent at best and yet they both get 8 figure salaries for three years each.

Sorry, but this is some of the absolutely stupidest signings I have seen this team make since the days of the Lou Gorman Sox. $13 million a year for mediocre at best level talent is a huge waste of money.

The Sox are going to be another last place team again next year that will have a huge payroll because they are giving star money to role playing players at best.

Yup. When you add up the money they spent on Victorino, Napoli, Ross, Ryan Gomes and Ortiz, they could've signed Hamilton and Greinke

they better have some great players coming out of the farm system soon, that's all I've got to say about that
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: PhoSita on December 04, 2012, 10:08:24 PM
I'd rather have Adrian Gonzalez than Napoli + Victorino.

I'd rather have Napoli + Victorino than Gonzalez + Beckett + Crawford + Punto.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on December 04, 2012, 10:16:17 PM
I'd go all out for Josh Hamilton as well, although they need a top tier starting pitcher more imo.

Kinda my thoughts. In spite of all the injuries the Red Sox suffered last year, their offense was rarely a problem. They're in desperate need of starting pitching.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: bucknersrevenge on December 04, 2012, 11:16:07 PM
Napoli and Victorino are mid level talent at best and yet they both get 8 figure salaries for three years each.

Sorry, but this is some of the absolutely stupidest signings I have seen this team make since the days of the Lou Gorman Sox. $13 million a year for mediocre at best level talent is a huge waste of money.

The Sox are going to be another last place team again next year that will have a huge payroll because they are giving star money to role playing players at best.

Could not agree more. I wanted Napoli 2 years ago because I was tired of him killing Sox pitchers all the time. But Napoli is a career .260 hitter with 25-27HR power on the wrong side of 30. And if Napoli is questionable, Victorino is outright insanity. I mean 39mil for OF defense and baserunning?? At least if you're gonna overpay, overpay for a power bat.

I get that you need to field a team and you have to spend money somewhere but these guys are worth 7-8mil any other year but this one. Hell, we could've kept Ross for 3 yrs at 8 or 9 mil i think.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: MBz on December 05, 2012, 12:37:45 AM
Speed and defense isn't worth 13 mil a year.  I feel like we could have gotn Ichiro for 6-7 and he's give us everything if not more then Victorino.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: PhoSita on December 05, 2012, 02:14:47 AM
Speed and defense isn't worth 13 mil a year.  I feel like we could have gotn Ichiro for 6-7 and he's give us everything if not more then Victorino.

Look at what other outfielders are getting.  13 million is the going rate this winter.

Also, I'll second what Tony Mazz has been saying in response to fan criticism of these signings -- who are these guys blocking?  Where would that money have been spent elsewhere?  On Josh Hamilton?  The Sox have made clear that's not in their plan.

The Sox have a three year plan, it seems to me, which involves paying extra money to get decent players to sign on shorter (3 yrs or less) deals.  I doubt the Sox view anybody who is currently on the 40-man roster as a lock to be around 3 years from now.  With the exception of maybe Middlebrooks and Lavarnway (if he pans out), nobody who starts the season on the big league roster for the Red Sox next season has a great likelihood of making it past this 3 year transition period.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: PhoSita on December 05, 2012, 02:22:27 AM
Napoli and Victorino are mid level talent at best and yet they both get 8 figure salaries for three years each.

Sorry, but this is some of the absolutely stupidest signings I have seen this team make since the days of the Lou Gorman Sox. $13 million a year for mediocre at best level talent is a huge waste of money.

The Sox are going to be another last place team again next year that will have a huge payroll because they are giving star money to role playing players at best.


I don't disagree with anything in your post except your assertion that these are stupid moves.  I think Sox ownership absolutely expects that this team will be an 80-85 win team for at least the next season or two.  They made the "Punto trade" to get out from underneath a mountain of bad money, and they're in no rush to get back under one.  They need to regain fan trust / interest, so they have to spend money to put a team out there that is going to at least be more competitive than the ragtag squad that was out there at the end of this past season.  But that's a really low bar.

All ownership has to do is spend extra money to give replacement-level players shorter deals and they will have a team that is "gritty" and "hard-working."  People are so disgusted and jaded after the last two years of seeing Red Sox teams that woefully underperformed and fell far short of lofty expectations, that a team lacking in talent that merely meets low expectations will seem like "more than the sum of its parts," and therefore likable.

Having thus put in place a more "likable" and far cheaper team (despite "overpaying" for guys like Napoli and Victorino), the Sox can be patient in waiting for the young guys to develop, and not make a move to invest long term (through trade or free agency) in any true stars until it really makes sense for them to do so.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Roy H. on December 05, 2012, 08:39:35 AM
I'd rather have Adrian Gonzalez than Napoli + Victorino.

I'd rather have Napoli + Victorino than Gonzalez + Beckett + Crawford + Punto.

LA had claimed Beckett on waivers, so he's not really part of the equation.  The Sox could have let him go for nothing.

Punto was making next to nothing, so he wasn't a big concern, either.

So, Napoli + Victorino or Gonzalez + Crawford?  I'll take Door #2.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Rondo2287 on December 05, 2012, 08:46:28 AM
I'd rather have Adrian Gonzalez than Napoli + Victorino.

I'd rather have Napoli + Victorino than Gonzalez + Beckett + Crawford + Punto.

LA had claimed Beckett on waivers, so he's not really part of the equation.  The Sox could have let him go for nothing.

Punto was making next to nothing, so he wasn't a big concern, either.

So, Napoli + Victorino or Gonzalez + Crawford?  I'll take Door #2.

Gonzo also was claimed on waivers if I recall, so by the same logic wouldnt he also not factor in since they could have just let him go for nothing?
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: nickagneta on December 05, 2012, 08:52:49 AM
I just don't see the logic in letting go of Crawford and Gonzalez for $40 million per year so that you can sign Victorino and Napoli at $26 million per year. The talent downgrade and possible upside of these players having good seasons is massive.

I don't care what the current free agent market is, Victorino and Napoli do not deserve money equaling anything more than $5-6 million a year and any GM and team that pays them more than that are idiots. IMHO.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Roy H. on December 05, 2012, 08:53:47 AM
I'd rather have Adrian Gonzalez than Napoli + Victorino.

I'd rather have Napoli + Victorino than Gonzalez + Beckett + Crawford + Punto.

LA had claimed Beckett on waivers, so he's not really part of the equation.  The Sox could have let him go for nothing.

Punto was making next to nothing, so he wasn't a big concern, either.

So, Napoli + Victorino or Gonzalez + Crawford?  I'll take Door #2.

Gonzo also was claimed on waivers if I recall, so by the same logic wouldnt he also not factor in since they could have just let him go for nothing?

Sure they could have.  But since I'm arguing that they should have kept him and paid his contract, I'm not understanding your point.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Fafnir on December 05, 2012, 09:01:26 AM
This just shows you that hitting the reset button impulsively because you hate your current team doesn't mean you actually have a "plan".

Though it sounds like they're not done making moves given that they need to address pitching still.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: nickagneta on December 05, 2012, 09:03:34 AM
This just shows you that hitting the reset button impulsively because you hate your current team doesn't mean you actually have a "plan".
LOL...TP. Absolutely.

I would have been happier with signing low money one year deals and waiting a season or two for a superstar free agent than tying up big money on mediocre role players on the plus side of 30.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Chris on December 05, 2012, 09:04:20 AM
I'd rather have Adrian Gonzalez than Napoli + Victorino.

I'd rather have Napoli + Victorino than Gonzalez + Beckett + Crawford + Punto.

LA had claimed Beckett on waivers, so he's not really part of the equation.  The Sox could have let him go for nothing.

Punto was making next to nothing, so he wasn't a big concern, either.

So, Napoli + Victorino or Gonzalez + Crawford?  I'll take Door #2.

I personally believe (with no direct knowledge) that the trade was arranged well before Beckett was claimed on waivers, and that the Dodgers would not have claimed Beckett, had the deal not been arranged beforehand.  Sure, the Sox could have just reneged, but that kind of stuff doesn't really go over well.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Rondo2287 on December 05, 2012, 09:08:26 AM
I'd rather have Adrian Gonzalez than Napoli + Victorino.

I'd rather have Napoli + Victorino than Gonzalez + Beckett + Crawford + Punto.

LA had claimed Beckett on waivers, so he's not really part of the equation.  The Sox could have let him go for nothing.

Punto was making next to nothing, so he wasn't a big concern, either.

So, Napoli + Victorino or Gonzalez + Crawford?  I'll take Door #2.

Gonzo also was claimed on waivers if I recall, so by the same logic wouldnt he also not factor in since they could have just let him go for nothing?

Sure they could have.  But since I'm arguing that they should have kept him and paid his contract, I'm not understanding your point.

I think the Redsox got stuff in return for beckett, namely prospects which isnt being considered here in the either or.  Its not Napoli +Victorino vs Gonzo, beckett, crafword, Punto.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Chris on December 05, 2012, 09:16:07 AM
This just shows you that hitting the reset button impulsively because you hate your current team doesn't mean you actually have a "plan".
LOL...TP. Absolutely.

I would have been happier with signing low money one year deals and waiting a season or two for a superstar free agent than tying up big money on mediocre role players on the plus side of 30.

While I agree with this, I actually think these are very much middle of the road FAs these days, and the fact that they are just on 3 year deals makes them much more flexible, than the bad contracts the Sox had signed in the past. 

The Sox still have plenty of money to throw around, if and when a superstar becomes available, but I think these signings allow them to keep their heads above water until that happens, and/or until their next wave of young guys are ready to step up.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Rondo2287 on December 05, 2012, 09:20:54 AM
This just shows you that hitting the reset button impulsively because you hate your current team doesn't mean you actually have a "plan".
LOL...TP. Absolutely.

I would have been happier with signing low money one year deals and waiting a season or two for a superstar free agent than tying up big money on mediocre role players on the plus side of 30.

While I agree with this, I actually think these are very much middle of the road FAs these days, and the fact that they are just on 3 year deals makes them much more flexible, than the bad contracts the Sox had signed in the past. 

The Sox still have plenty of money to throw around, if and when a superstar becomes available, but I think these signings allow them to keep their heads above water until that happens, and/or until their next wave of young guys are ready to step up.

I relly didnt mind the napoli signing.  The Victorino signing worries me a bit though. 

But I agree, I don't think these signings prohibit them from doing anything they would want to do in the future. 
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Chris on December 05, 2012, 09:28:35 AM
This just shows you that hitting the reset button impulsively because you hate your current team doesn't mean you actually have a "plan".
LOL...TP. Absolutely.

I would have been happier with signing low money one year deals and waiting a season or two for a superstar free agent than tying up big money on mediocre role players on the plus side of 30.

While I agree with this, I actually think these are very much middle of the road FAs these days, and the fact that they are just on 3 year deals makes them much more flexible, than the bad contracts the Sox had signed in the past. 

The Sox still have plenty of money to throw around, if and when a superstar becomes available, but I think these signings allow them to keep their heads above water until that happens, and/or until their next wave of young guys are ready to step up.

I relly didnt mind the napoli signing.  The Victorino signing worries me a bit though. 

But I agree, I don't think these signings prohibit them from doing anything they would want to do in the future.

Oh, I am not thrilled with the signings either.  But I also don't think either of these are the kind of contracts that kill you. 

You hope they work out, and with Victorino in particular, I think you can at least count on him being an upgrade in the clubhouse, which is something this team needed.  But, they are still small enough that the Sox can eat them if the players really stink. 

Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Rondo2287 on December 05, 2012, 09:31:20 AM
This just shows you that hitting the reset button impulsively because you hate your current team doesn't mean you actually have a "plan".
LOL...TP. Absolutely.

I would have been happier with signing low money one year deals and waiting a season or two for a superstar free agent than tying up big money on mediocre role players on the plus side of 30.

While I agree with this, I actually think these are very much middle of the road FAs these days, and the fact that they are just on 3 year deals makes them much more flexible, than the bad contracts the Sox had signed in the past. 

The Sox still have plenty of money to throw around, if and when a superstar becomes available, but I think these signings allow them to keep their heads above water until that happens, and/or until their next wave of young guys are ready to step up.

I relly didnt mind the napoli signing.  The Victorino signing worries me a bit though. 

But I agree, I don't think these signings prohibit them from doing anything they would want to do in the future.

Oh, I am not thrilled with the signings either.  But I also don't think either of these are the kind of contracts that kill you. 

You hope they work out, and with Victorino in particular, I think you can at least count on him being an upgrade in the clubhouse, which is something this team needed.  But, they are still small enough that the Sox can eat them if the players really stink.

Mazz actually said yesterday that the sox could be lucky that napoli had a down year last year because if he didnt he would be getting a 5 year 17 mill per year contract
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Chris on December 05, 2012, 09:35:31 AM
This just shows you that hitting the reset button impulsively because you hate your current team doesn't mean you actually have a "plan".
LOL...TP. Absolutely.

I would have been happier with signing low money one year deals and waiting a season or two for a superstar free agent than tying up big money on mediocre role players on the plus side of 30.

While I agree with this, I actually think these are very much middle of the road FAs these days, and the fact that they are just on 3 year deals makes them much more flexible, than the bad contracts the Sox had signed in the past. 

The Sox still have plenty of money to throw around, if and when a superstar becomes available, but I think these signings allow them to keep their heads above water until that happens, and/or until their next wave of young guys are ready to step up.

I relly didnt mind the napoli signing.  The Victorino signing worries me a bit though. 

But I agree, I don't think these signings prohibit them from doing anything they would want to do in the future.

Oh, I am not thrilled with the signings either.  But I also don't think either of these are the kind of contracts that kill you. 

You hope they work out, and with Victorino in particular, I think you can at least count on him being an upgrade in the clubhouse, which is something this team needed.  But, they are still small enough that the Sox can eat them if the players really stink.

Mazz actually said yesterday that the sox could be lucky that napoli had a down year last year because if he didnt he would be getting a 5 year 17 mill per year contract

Yeah, Napoli could be a real find.  I am always afraid of guys who his age, who haven't been super consistent, but he really gives them the right handed bat they need, and he rakes at Fenway.  That could potentially be a great signing. 
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Fafnir on December 05, 2012, 09:37:02 AM
5 year at 17 for Napoli? Even supposing a good year last year that seems nuts.

Baseball contracts have gotten crazy since I started following the sport as an adult.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: nickagneta on December 05, 2012, 09:37:55 AM
Just because the Red Sox were able to move a huge portion of their contracts out this year and make their long term payroll liability much much less, doesn't make these signings any less bad. They might not hurt them but it doesn't mean they were smart signings fiscally.

People around here were lamenting the 5 year $70 million contract that J D Drew got since the moment he signed that contract and now just a couple years later Two $13 million a year contracts for three years are considered not being able to hurt the team?

I disagree whole heartedly. Massively overpaying players is bad business and it doesn't matter if that player is Carl Crawford, John Lackey, J D Drew or Shane Victorino or Mike Napoli. Its bad business and will eventually come back to bite you in the butt.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Chris on December 05, 2012, 09:42:14 AM
5 year at 17 for Napoli? Even supposing a good year last year that seems nuts.

Baseball contracts have gotten crazy since I started following the sport as an adult.

Well, in the previous season, in just 113 games, Napoli hit .320, with 30 home runs and a 1.046 OPS.  Those are MVP type numbers, and for a guy who could play catcher, that is pretty impressive.

Of course, it looks like that season was an aberation, and he looks like he is closer to a .260, 25 HR, .850 OPS guy.  But, Mazz is right.  Had he come closer to his 2011 season last year, he would have actually been closer to 20 million per year. 
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Cman on December 05, 2012, 09:42:56 AM
Maybe the Celtics can sell the Red Sox the contracts of Green and Lee. Then we'd be all set.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Rondo2287 on December 05, 2012, 09:43:53 AM
5 year at 17 for Napoli? Even supposing a good year last year that seems nuts.

Baseball contracts have gotten crazy since I started following the sport as an adult.

Well I mean think if he was a free agent just a year earlier coming off hitting .350 with a .464 obp, 2 hr and 10 rbi in the world series.  He would have made bank.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Rondo2287 on December 05, 2012, 09:45:34 AM
I know alot of people would disagree with me but I would have rathered they sign hamilton at 3 years 26 million per year than napoli and shane for 3 years 13 mill each
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Chris on December 05, 2012, 09:46:17 AM
Just because the Red Sox were able to move a huge portion of their contracts out this year and make their long term payroll liability much much less, doesn't make these signings any less bad. They might not hurt them but it doesn't mean they were smart signings fiscally.

People around here were lamenting the 5 year $70 million contract that J D Drew got since the moment he signed that contract and now just a couple years later Two $13 million a year contracts for three years are considered not being able to hurt the team?

I disagree whole heartedly. Massively overpaying players is bad business and it doesn't matter if that player is Carl Crawford, John Lackey, J D Drew or Shane Victorino or Mike Napoli. Its bad business and will eventually come back to bite you in the butt.

Well, I don't think this is a JD Drew signing.  First of all, it is smaller money (and even moreso, when you consider inflation), 2 less years, which is VERY significant.  And the players are not JD Drew.  Victorino is basically the anti-Drew.  He doesn't miss many games, and he plays with a ton of heart and is great in the clubhouse.  And Napoli is a guy they are buying low on, after an off year.

I just think that in todays MLB, 3 years/$39 million is the going rate for an above average every day player, which both of these guys are. 
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Chris on December 05, 2012, 09:47:10 AM
I know alot of people would disagree with me but I would have rathered they sign hamilton at 3 years 26 million per year than napoli and shane for 3 years 13 mill each

Oh, I would be completely with you.  But I don't think there is any chance Hamilton would sign for that.  I think he is looking for a 6 or 7 year deal. 
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Rondo2287 on December 05, 2012, 09:54:15 AM
Honestly, I think the formula is simple.  If a guy doesnt hit 20 HR's a season don't pay him over 14 million per year, if a guy is over 30 and is a pitcher don't sign them to more than a 3 year deal

Would have eliminated crawford and lackey and the sox would be ok. 
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Chris on December 05, 2012, 09:55:13 AM
Honestly, I think the formula is simple.  If a guy doesnt hit 20 HR's a season don't pay him over 14 million per year, if a guy is over 30 and is a pitcher don't sign them to more than a 3 year deal

Would have eliminated crawford and lackey and the sox would be ok.

Seem like reasonable rules.   
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Rondo2287 on December 05, 2012, 10:01:39 AM
Honestly, I think the formula is simple.  If a guy doesnt hit 20 HR's a season don't pay him over 14 million per year, if a guy is over 30 and is a pitcher don't sign them to more than a 3 year deal

Would have eliminated crawford and lackey and the sox would be ok.

Seem like reasonable rules.

I guess the exception might be if they are already your players and you are signing extensions.  I don't mind it for a guy we know can play in this market and is a good clubhouse guy etc. 
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: pearljammer10 on December 05, 2012, 10:10:18 AM
Honestly, I think the formula is simple.  If a guy doesnt hit 20 HR's a season don't pay him over 14 million per year, if a guy is over 30 and is a pitcher don't sign them to more than a 3 year deal

Would have eliminated crawford and lackey and the sox would be ok.

Make some sense, but you wouldnt sign a player like Jose Reyes? For some guys the rules are going to be broken.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Rondo2287 on December 05, 2012, 10:16:45 AM
Honestly, I think the formula is simple.  If a guy doesnt hit 20 HR's a season don't pay him over 14 million per year, if a guy is over 30 and is a pitcher don't sign them to more than a 3 year deal

Would have eliminated crawford and lackey and the sox would be ok.

Make some sense, but you wouldnt sign a player like Jose Reyes? For some guys the rules are going to be broken.

I wouldnt have signed Reyes but more because of durability than power. 
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: wdleehi on December 05, 2012, 10:27:47 AM
As a Phillies fan, if Victorino has a bounce back year, you will be very happy with him.


He plays good defense and will make clutch hits. 
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Chris on December 05, 2012, 11:06:28 AM
As a Phillies fan, if Victorino has a bounce back year, you will be very happy with him.


He plays good defense and will make clutch hits.

He kind of gives me a Trot Nixon vibe.  Does that seem accurate?

Not a great hitter, or the most talented fielder in the world, but a very solid all around player, a good leader, and a guy who rises to the occasion.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: PhoSita on December 05, 2012, 02:55:01 PM
I'd rather have Adrian Gonzalez than Napoli + Victorino.

I'd rather have Napoli + Victorino than Gonzalez + Beckett + Crawford + Punto.

LA had claimed Beckett on waivers, so he's not really part of the equation.  The Sox could have let him go for nothing.

Punto was making next to nothing, so he wasn't a big concern, either.

So, Napoli + Victorino or Gonzalez + Crawford?  I'll take Door #2.

My understanding of the situation is that the Dodgers claiming Beckett on waivers was connected to the entire trade.  I don't think it was ever really a possibility of just letting Beckett go. 

Even if it was, I disagree with your conclusion -- I'll take future flexibility over Gonzalez + Crawford.  Mainly because I think it had become obvious that the core we had in place was not going to win anything.  We needed to clear the decks and start over.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: PhoSita on December 05, 2012, 02:57:08 PM
I just don't see the logic in letting go of Crawford and Gonzalez for $40 million per year so that you can sign Victorino and Napoli at $26 million per year. The talent downgrade and possible upside of these players having good seasons is massive.

I don't care what the current free agent market is, Victorino and Napoli do not deserve money equaling anything more than $5-6 million a year and any GM and team that pays them more than that are idiots. IMHO.


It's all about the YEARS.

Victorino and Napoli are locked up for 3 years.

Crawford and Gonzalez were locked up for another 6-7 years.

ENORMOUS difference.

Just because the Red Sox were able to move a huge portion of their contracts out this year and make their long term payroll liability much much less, doesn't make these signings any less bad. They might not hurt them but it doesn't mean they were smart signings fiscally.

People around here were lamenting the 5 year $70 million contract that J D Drew got since the moment he signed that contract and now just a couple years later Two $13 million a year contracts for three years are considered not being able to hurt the team?

I disagree whole heartedly. Massively overpaying players is bad business and it doesn't matter if that player is Carl Crawford, John Lackey, J D Drew or Shane Victorino or Mike Napoli. Its bad business and will eventually come back to bite you in the butt.

You're forgetting that baseball, like basketball is a business first and foremost.

Sure, the Red Sox could forego spending money on free agents period, in which case they'd put a low cost team on the field that would be lucky to win 75 games, and even worse, be incredibly boring (a bunch of .250 hitters barely ever knocking it out of the field).

If they did that, though, they'd destroy what remaining good will they had with the fan base.  They need to put a product on the field that is reasonably entertaining while they transition to the next championship caliber core.  They can't just punt for three years.  Not in this market.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: MBz on December 22, 2012, 08:46:41 AM
Ichiro resigned with the yanks at 2 years, 6.5 mil per.  He will prob give the Yanks more then what Victorino is going to give us.  The sox are overpaying all these guys basically because they are high character guys.  Sure it's better then having jerks like Beckett, Gonzo, etc around, but we need producers.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Cman on January 17, 2013, 11:12:31 AM
Napoli apparently coming to Sox on a one year deal now. Depending on the price tag, much better than the initial three year deal, IMHO.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Chris on January 17, 2013, 11:27:37 AM
Napoli apparently coming to Sox on a one year deal now. Depending on the price tag, much better than the initial three year deal, IMHO.

Last I heard, it might actually be less AAV than the 3 year deal.  The physical must have been REALLY bad.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Roy H. on January 17, 2013, 01:17:13 PM
Napoli apparently coming to Sox on a one year deal now. Depending on the price tag, much better than the initial three year deal, IMHO.

Last I heard, it might actually be less AAV than the 3 year deal.  The physical must have been REALLY bad.

$5 million base salary, can go up to $13 million with incentives.  1 year deal.
Title: Re: Sox sign Victorino
Post by: Chris on January 17, 2013, 01:26:29 PM
Napoli apparently coming to Sox on a one year deal now. Depending on the price tag, much better than the initial three year deal, IMHO.

Last I heard, it might actually be less AAV than the 3 year deal.  The physical must have been REALLY bad.

$5 million base salary, can go up to $13 million with incentives.  1 year deal.

Wow.  So there must be something seriously wrong.  I am not sure what I think of this now.  If he is healthy enough to play, its a great deal, but this really makes me think he is a big time injury risk.