Jump to content

2014 MLB Offseason


Gary

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 464
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Oh, well, umm, hi, Mr. Ellsbury. Welcome to the better side of the rivalry, I guess.

This surprised the hell out of me.

Not surprised at all. Oh well. Not really a place for him on the Red Sox anymore, especially at the price he Boras wanted. Sox learned their lesson on giving fat contracts to lead off hitters already...

On 4/10/2017 at 3:05 PM, Rollins Man said:

what the hell is ccslc?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is definitely true, although speaking from a fan POV, I was a lot more enticed at Ellsbury this time around, than I EVER was about Crawford three years ago. That was one contract that I always suspected was going to be mistake-ridden, and I was glad when the Red Sox were the dumb team to cave to him.

Too bad the Dodgers put a restriction on how long I could enjoy that.

(still irritated. After 2013, forever irritated about that trade.)

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just heard on the radio that there are initial reports coming out of Kansas City that the Royals have agreed to terms with Carlos Beltran. They haven't so much as mentioned it beyond the initial report (and considering the source, KTAR 620 in Phoenix, this could still just be them jumping the gun a bit), but they're saying it's in the three year $50 million dollar range. If it's true, that's a pretty high risk high reward move for them. Beltran is great, but nearly 17 million a year for a guy his age could be kinda problematic for them if he falls apart physically.

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just heard on the radio that there are initial reports coming out of Kansas City that the Royals have agreed to terms with Carlos Beltran. They haven't so much as mentioned it beyond the initial report (and considering the source, KTAR 620 in Phoenix, this could still just be them jumping the gun a bit), but they're saying it's in the three year $50 million dollar range. If it's true, that's a pretty high risk high reward move for them. Beltran is great, but nearly 17 million a year for a guy his age could be kinda problematic for them if he falls apart physically.

I know the Yankees were hesitant to give Beltran that third year, and that does make some sense when you consider the state that his knees are in, and the fact that there are some signs that he could be in decline was enough to give them pause. Seems reasonable.

Which is why giving someone who only played 18 games in 2010 and 74 games in 2012 a seven-year contract is so much smarter, I guess. But this isn't about the Yankees, this is about Beltran with the Royals, which is a nice reunion and full circle on Beltran's career, in addition to being a sign that the Royals are ready to go to the next level, but I have no damned clue if Kansas City is really capable of that. 2013 played out almost like a best-case scenario season for the Royals, frankly, and I'm not sure they're gonna be able to win 86+ games again in 2014. Ervin Santana was a godsend and he may be on the outs this winter.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, well, umm, hi, Mr. Ellsbury. Welcome to the better side of the rivalry, I guess.

This surprised the hell out of me.

Not surprised at all. Oh well. Not really a place for him on the Red Sox anymore, especially at the price he Boras wanted. Sox learned their lesson on giving fat contracts to lead off hitters already...

I'm curious as to why you say Boras, not Ellsbury, wanted that much money. I don't know the logistics of Ellsbury's negotiations with the Red Sox (if there were any).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Sox fan, I like the Ellsbury deal. I didn't expect him to re-sign with Boston so it's not as though it weakened the Red Sox. That's a lot of money for a guy who's missed as many games in the last four years as he has. Although I don't think the injury thing is as big of a deal as it's being made out to be as they've mostly been contact injuries, it's not something that should get better with age.

My favorite part is a team with so many holes spending so much money to plug just a few of them, especially with their self-set spending limit, which seems to have gone by the wayside. If they don't sign Cano now, this will be a huge head scratcher since Ellsbury's money would be much better used towards paying Cano.

IUe6Hvh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just heard on the radio that there are initial reports coming out of Kansas City that the Royals have agreed to terms with Carlos Beltran. They haven't so much as mentioned it beyond the initial report (and considering the source, KTAR 620 in Phoenix, this could still just be them jumping the gun a bit), but they're saying it's in the three year $50 million dollar range. If it's true, that's a pretty high risk high reward move for them. Beltran is great, but nearly 17 million a year for a guy his age could be kinda problematic for them if he falls apart physically.

Nice to see KC actually spending money though, as opposed to being a farm system for contenders the past 20 years.

sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ELLSBURY IS SUCH A #TRADER. HOW COULD YOU

How could he? There are about 153-169 million reasons. :-p

Jacoby Ellsbury isn't a trader and he damn sure isn't a traitor either. He's an contractor that made a great business decision.

I'm still very surprised to see him get that "Carl Crawford" kind of contract. I sincerely hope that Bryce Harper and especially Mike Trout can stay healthy and ball out for the next several years. Those are going to be some huge numbers.

On January 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, NJTank said:

Btw this is old hat for Notre Dame. Knits Rockne made up George Tip's death bed speech.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Sox fan, I like the Ellsbury deal. I didn't expect him to re-sign with Boston so it's not as though it weakened the Red Sox. That's a lot of money for a guy who's missed as many games in the last four years as he has. Although I don't think the injury thing is as big of a deal as it's being made out to be as they've mostly been contact injuries, it's not something that should get better with age.

My favorite part is a team with so many holes spending so much money to plug just a few of them, especially with their self-set spending limit, which seems to have gone by the wayside. If they don't sign Cano now, this will be a huge head scratcher since Ellsbury's money would be much better used towards paying Cano.

When I see contracts like this, it makes me wonder just how much Mission $189M was just a convenient way for the Yankees to use injuries and old guys as an excuse for being terrible.

Seriously, that is pretty much all I heard the entire off-season last year, about how the goal essentially handicapped them to nothing more than signing washed up guys to low-base deals. It became pretty remarkable after a while.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ELLSBURY IS SUCH A #TRADER. HOW COULD YOU

How could he? There are about 153-169 million reasons. :-p

Jacoby Ellsbury isn't a trader and he damn sure isn't a traitor either. He's an contractor that made a great business decision.

I'm still very surprised to see him get that "Carl Crawford" kind of contract. I sincerely hope that Bryce Harper and especially Mike Trout can stay healthy and ball out for the next several years. Those are going to be some huge numbers.

Seriously. Can't begrudge a guy for getting himself a deal like that. It seems like a stupid contract, but that's not the player's fault - it's not like any of us would ever have turned that deal down, regardless of which team offered it.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.