Red Sox to Talk Extension with Jason Bay
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 12, 2009 11:19 PM EST
Email
PrintThe Boston Globe says that sometime before the start of the season, the Sox will talk with Jason Bay, who is eligible for free agency after 2009, about an extension. As the article notes, the Pat Burrell contract probably didn't do Bay any favors.
Trying to trade Bay this offseason might well have turned into just as big a mess as the actual trade now appears to be.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Are You Feeling Sorry For Jason Bay ...
now that his salary may only be in the $10-12 million per year range or maybe $55-60 million for four years?
Well, sure, why not?
I liked him when he was here, and it’d be nice to see him do well in free agency.
And it’s not like the money’d be going to starving orphans if Bay doesn’t get it. It’d just stay in John Henry’s wallet until he felt like buying a Picasso or a beach house in Miami or something like that.
or john smoltz, takashi saito, rocco baldelli, brad penny, mark kotsay, josh bard, etc, etc.
with all the talk of the yankees spending spree, i haven’t heard any complaining from the peanut gallery about the red sox spending about $20 million on lottery ticket free agents this winter. i guess it’s just more fun to hate the yankees.
Why would anyone complain about what the Red Sox have done? They aren’t grabbing every to free agent on the market. They’re signing specific players to fill their needs. Any other team with an event DECENT wallet bulge could have sized any of those guys you listed. Hell, Baldelli is going to cost the Sox 500K. That’s a steal.
Why would anyone complain about what the Red Sox have done?
i didn’t say there was anything wrong with it. that wasn’t intended as a shot at the red sox. i actually think that their moves this offseason have been very shrewd. some pirates fans love to complain that the spending disparity is unfair. it’s often their only excuse for why our team is so bad. i’ve found it strange that most of the related ire is directed towards the yankees when the red sox, of a similar relative spending ability, can spend an amount more than half of the pirates’ payroll on risky players without having to be concerned with the consequences of ones that don’t pan out. the pirates could not afford to be wrong about, say, both saito and baldelli – let alone that entire list – and still expect to field a competitive team, not to mention also draft according to their desires and continue to expand their international scouting operations.
Any other team with an event DECENT wallet bulge could have sized any of those guys you listed.
now that i have to disagree with. the pirates were, by all accounts, neck and neck with the sox on baldelli as far as money was concerned. apparently the decision came down to the ability to DH and proximity to his hometown. unmentioned is the fact that the sox actually have a chance to compete this year, as opposed to many of the other options he had. regardless, the point is that nobody could have signed ALL of them.
Hell, Baldelli is going to cost the Sox 500K.
sounds like you’re not expecting him to get many at bats. iirc, his incentives are based on plate appearances.
Performance Histories and Big Messes
Comments like “just as big a mess as the actual trade now appears to be” are what I was referring to back in the assumptions pt. 2 thread when I suggested that you seem to be ignoring LaRoche’s good performance record.
You don’t think the trade now appears to be a pretty bad one? I’ve defended LaRoche’s performance record many times, but the guy was horrible for the Pirates.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 13, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
Too early to tell.
I was looking at Hansen and Moss as throw-ins from the start, so if they disappoint, it’s not a big deal to me. And I’m not ready to bail on LaRoche or Morris just yet.
I’m not making a final judgment on the trade or bailing on anyone, just saying that the trade does not look good right now.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 13, 2009 2:32 PM EST up reply actions
No, not at all.....
I don’t think the trade is anything close to a bad one. What would a year and a half more of Bay gotten us? If we get anything out of LaRoche and/or Morris we win. Hansen is a lottery ticket.
But I do think you are exactly right in saying it may have been incredibly difficult to get anything of value for Bay were we trying to trade him now.
I guess the question...
…is whether Tampa’s theoretical offer (Niemann and maybe Brignac, maybe not) looks better at this point than the package we got.
Well, or whether some other package could have been had. The deal with LA and Boston came together at the last second, and it’s possible the Pirates could have asked for a totally different group of players and still gotten the job done.
Of course, this is all hindsight. I think Andy LaRoche is exactly the sort of player they needed to pursue. That he’s been terrible so far is a different issue.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 13, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
I agree that he’s been terrible so far. But that’s half a season, and he has a performance history. If we traded for a guy who had a terrible minor league performance history – one tha would predict a performance in line with what Andy gave us – and then he hit something like .280/.360/.480 down the stretch, would you be calling it a great deal right now, or predicting that the guy was going to fall back down to earth in line with his minor league performance history?
More the latter than the former, but I don’t think a half-season’s worth of at bats should be ignored.
Anyone who thinks I’m ignoring LaRoche’s performance record obviously hasn’t read the many posts where I’ve defended it.
I can’t win here. If I write about his performance record, I get, “Please tell me what he has done in the MAJOR leagues.” If I mention that his poor play in the majors makes the return on the trade look worse, I get this. Say Bay were still with the Pirates and the Red Sox and Dodgers called right now and asked for the same trade—would you make it? I wouldn’t, even though trading Bay now would be difficult.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 14, 2009 6:34 PM EST up reply actions
There is a win here
I don’t see this trade as being about Andy, Hansen or Moss. As was stated Hansen is a Wild Card, if he gets it together then sweet. Moss and Andy, should be solid players, but I don’t see either as a star.
The deal was all about Morris. It all depends how he turns out. If these other guys tank, so be it. I don’t think they will, but I can’t see Moss or Andy being around too long once/if they catch fire. I’m not saying they will be traded this year, but I could see them moved within 2.
Too many people are making this to be about Andy and Moss, nah, they are marginal. Though I’ll give Andy a slight pass due to the injury last year. He could make it, or strike out. This all depends on Morris, don’t be fooled that is the play.
If This Were True ...
it would have to go down as one of the worst trades in baseball history - Bay for a Low A pitcher who has already undergone arm surgery.
Lots of guys have TJ nowadays.
It’s not that big a deal anymore, particularly if a guy has already shown that he’s healthy after getting cut.
No, not really
I can’t see how this is a bad trade at all, you get two guys who have high enough upside to be at least, league average. And another kid who ultimately could be the staff ace. We won’t know until at least after this year, but I believe Morris was a steal in this trade.
Granted it’s a gamble, but all trades of this type are a gamble. But the potential is there.
I would have preferred someone other than Hanson, but that is almost splitting hairs.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
