Author Topic: Gonzo, Beckett, Crawford Mega Deal (merged threads)  (Read 18918 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Gonzo, Beckett, Crawford Mega Deal (merged threads)
« Reply #45 on: August 26, 2012, 01:37:32 PM »

Offline Finkelskyhook

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2887
  • Tommy Points: 285
Wow....Gonzalez and Beckett apparently couldn't get out of Boston fast enough....To be in uniform the same day the trade becomes official.

I left my house with the score 9-3 last night.  lol.  This team is a train wreck with or without them. 


Re: Gonzo, Beckett, Crawford Mega Deal (merged threads)
« Reply #46 on: August 26, 2012, 02:05:13 PM »

Offline pearljammer10

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13129
  • Tommy Points: 885
This makes the dodgers super scary if they can play up to potential...
I mean, an order of; Crawford, Hanley, kemp, agon, either, Ellis, victorino, and Ellis is mighty at the top half

Re: Gonzo, Beckett, Crawford Mega Deal (merged threads)
« Reply #47 on: August 26, 2012, 03:59:25 PM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777
I'm not sure how i feel about this. On the one hand, you always have to be moving forward, and knowing when you've messed up and rectifying it is important.

On the other, Gonzalez is a true talent, and will realistically not be replaced. I'd much rather have avoided the absolutely unnecessary extension for Beckett, Lackey signing, and crawford signing.

Additionally, odds are poor that crawford will earn his future contract, but odds are also poor that he is as bad as these last two years. The past with crawford is already sunk, so i'm not sure moving Gonzo to get rid of crawford is that smart.

I also don't trust this management going forward. The smear job on Tito was deplorable; he won 2 world series. If managment is going to ship out players just to appease their guy in valentine, that's a recipe for disaster. It seems like they knew they had problem players, canned tito to try to change the players, players stayed the same, so the then canned the players to keep the new manager. Why didn't they just can the players in the first place?

And, they haven't been that bad this year. They are 30-38 with a +27 run differential, so they 'should' be well over .500. And with better injury luck next year, this same team would potentially be a contender.

Part of the problem is the completely irrational sense the sox seem to have that if they chop money off their payroll from the previous season, they MUST offer that much money, per year, for multiple years on a new guy...then regretting it a year later. Why do this? Why spend money just for the sake of it?

It seems like the lackey year, the sox wanted a pitcher and had a few millions less in payroll than the previous year, so they had to fill that salary slot with a multi-year deal. Same for crawford. Why not just roll that salary over until someone worthwhile came up? It sucks having this team hamstrung by completely unnecessary long term deals that seem to be signed just because the team feels they need to replace salary as soon as it comes off the books with longer deals.

Therefore, I just don't trust what they will do this offseason. I could totally see this team thinking "hey, we shaved 70 million per year off the payroll; we need to replace that with new 70 million in 2013 that will all be signed longterm, then we'll be hamstrung in 2014-2016 with non-star talent!!


I really hope this team actually adopts a long term view: get good young talent, properly rate it, fill in with short term buy-low vets, only commit long term to true legit stars, and keep the flexibility to lock their own talent up early with team-friendly/player security type contracts. In other words, become the Rays but with the money to smartly keep the true stars and add 1-2 major star FAs on top. (Imagine if the rays, as they existed, could have just bought Gonzo on the FA market?)

Re: Gonzo, Beckett, Crawford Mega Deal (merged threads)
« Reply #48 on: August 26, 2012, 06:48:06 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
interesting move for the Sox.   hard to see a downside here.  the financial relief is huge.  The biggest negative is that future FA's will probably think twice before signing with Boston due to this deal. 

now if the Sox jettison Lackey and Dice-K, I'll be even more impressed.

Re: Gonzo, Beckett, Crawford Mega Deal (merged threads)
« Reply #49 on: August 26, 2012, 07:24:46 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
interesting move for the Sox.   hard to see a downside here.  the financial relief is huge.  The biggest negative is that future FA's will probably think twice before signing with Boston due to this deal. 

now if the Sox jettison Lackey and Dice-K, I'll be even more impressed.
No one is taking Lackey at his money, the Sox would have to pick up the whole deal....

Re: Gonzo, Beckett, Crawford Mega Deal (merged threads)
« Reply #50 on: August 26, 2012, 08:41:49 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
interesting move for the Sox.   hard to see a downside here.  the financial relief is huge.  The biggest negative is that future FA's will probably think twice before signing with Boston due to this deal. 

now if the Sox jettison Lackey and Dice-K, I'll be even more impressed.
No one is taking Lackey at his money, the Sox would have to pick up the whole deal....
which is why I'd be more impressed if they were able to deal him

Re: Gonzo, Beckett, Crawford Mega Deal (merged threads)
« Reply #51 on: August 28, 2012, 02:04:22 PM »

Offline AB_Celtic

  • DKC Commish
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3234
  • Tommy Points: 460


credit to buzzfeed.com

Re: Gonzo, Beckett, Crawford Mega Deal (merged threads)
« Reply #52 on: August 28, 2012, 02:38:20 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30937
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
Jayson Stark pointed out something pretty cool on Twitter yesterday.

Has there ever been a trade where one guy hit a homerun with his new team in his first AB and another guy gave up a homerun pitching to the first batter he faced. 


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Gonzo, Beckett, Crawford Mega Deal (merged threads)
« Reply #53 on: August 28, 2012, 05:08:23 PM »

Offline Finkelskyhook

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2887
  • Tommy Points: 285
interesting move for the Sox.   hard to see a downside here.  the financial relief is huge.  The biggest negative is that future FA's will probably think twice before signing with Boston due to this deal. 

now if the Sox jettison Lackey and Dice-K, I'll be even more impressed.
No one is taking Lackey at his money, the Sox would have to pick up the whole deal....

Lackey is not a bad guy.  He will probably have a solid season next season.

Re: Gonzo, Beckett, Crawford Mega Deal (merged threads)
« Reply #54 on: August 28, 2012, 05:11:27 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
interesting move for the Sox.   hard to see a downside here.  the financial relief is huge.  The biggest negative is that future FA's will probably think twice before signing with Boston due to this deal. 

now if the Sox jettison Lackey and Dice-K, I'll be even more impressed.
No one is taking Lackey at his money, the Sox would have to pick up the whole deal....

Lackey is not a bad guy.  He will probably have a solid season next season.

Yeah, I am not going to suggest Lackey is a good guy, but maybe with Beckett not around, it will help him stay in line.  I think those guys fed off each other a little too much.

As far as his value and pitching, at this point, they might as well see how he comes back from surgery.  If his velocity returns, then he could actually really help this team over the next couple years.  He may not be worth his salary, but that is a sunk cost at this point.