Comments on: No offer for you (Updated) http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/ Bill Burt's blog on sports Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:34:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.1 By: Tom http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-161 Tom Fri, 23 Feb 2007 02:48:00 +0000 http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-161 <p>Yes, they do.<BR/><BR/>Cleveland signed him, and that's what counts. The fact that he's retired doesn't change that.</p> Yes, they do.

Cleveland signed him, and that’s what counts. The fact that he’s retired doesn’t change that.

]]> By: Anonymous http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-160 Anonymous Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:36:00 +0000 http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-160 <p>Speaking of that last comment... do the Sox still get draft picks from Foulke?</p> Speaking of that last comment… do the Sox still get draft picks from Foulke?

]]> By: Tom P http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-159 Tom P Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:29:00 +0000 http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-159 <p>I don't think the Sox are making a mistake by not guaranteeing '08 for Schilling before the season.<BR/><BR/>If he has a great year, it'll cost a premium to resign him, but they'll have some assurance that he'll be worth every dime. If he signs with someone else (and he's said it will NOT be the Yankees), it'll be as a Type A free agent, the Sox will get a first round and a supplemental draft pick.<BR/><BR/>I don't think the "wait and see" response is an unreasonable one.</p> I don’t think the Sox are making a mistake by not guaranteeing ‘08 for Schilling before the season.

If he has a great year, it’ll cost a premium to resign him, but they’ll have some assurance that he’ll be worth every dime. If he signs with someone else (and he’s said it will NOT be the Yankees), it’ll be as a Type A free agent, the Sox will get a first round and a supplemental draft pick.

I don’t think the “wait and see” response is an unreasonable one.

]]> By: Anonymous http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-158 Anonymous Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:07:00 +0000 http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-158 <p>I disagree about the cost to resign Schilling. Even based on reputation, he'll command more on the open market than he would sign for today. <BR/><BR/>He won't get Pedro money, but look what an unhealthy Pedro commanded based on reputation. <BR/><BR/>- The Capt.</p> I disagree about the cost to resign Schilling. Even based on reputation, he’ll command more on the open market than he would sign for today.

He won’t get Pedro money, but look what an unhealthy Pedro commanded based on reputation.

- The Capt.

]]> By: Anonymous http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-157 Anonymous Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:15:00 +0000 http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-157 <p>Rob, love your blog. I think that Sox FO is making a smart decision in not re-signing Curt Shilling prior to the season starting. They need to get a good look at Jon Lester, they can't hold him back another year in AAA. With Lester and Bucholz coming up, the FO is going to need to start making decisions on Shilling and Wakefield in the near future. So this year will be a good year to evaluate the aging starters. Also in a contract year, maybe Curt Shillings will push himself harder to make himself more marketable and worthy of a mutli-year contract. Do you think the Red Sox FO is making a smart move?</p> Rob, love your blog. I think that Sox FO is making a smart decision in not re-signing Curt Shilling prior to the season starting. They need to get a good look at Jon Lester, they can’t hold him back another year in AAA. With Lester and Bucholz coming up, the FO is going to need to start making decisions on Shilling and Wakefield in the near future. So this year will be a good year to evaluate the aging starters. Also in a contract year, maybe Curt Shillings will push himself harder to make himself more marketable and worthy of a mutli-year contract. Do you think the Red Sox FO is making a smart move?

]]> By: Anonymous http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-156 Anonymous Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:51:00 +0000 http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-156 <p>I bet the happiest person to hear about Schilling (though he'd never admit it publicly) is Jon Lester. The Sox are being prudent in this case. If Schilling's terrific this year, re-sign him in the fall. I doubt it would cost much more. <BR/><BR/>Rob, I'm interested in Jeff Natale's progress. Do you know if the Sox are looking to put him at third base rather than second, considering the relative ages of Pedroia and Lowell? I would think it would be prudent to work him at third as much as possible and see what he can do there. Thanks.</p> I bet the happiest person to hear about Schilling (though he’d never admit it publicly) is Jon Lester. The Sox are being prudent in this case. If Schilling’s terrific this year, re-sign him in the fall. I doubt it would cost much more.

Rob, I’m interested in Jeff Natale’s progress. Do you know if the Sox are looking to put him at third base rather than second, considering the relative ages of Pedroia and Lowell? I would think it would be prudent to work him at third as much as possible and see what he can do there. Thanks.

]]> By: Shelly http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-155 Shelly Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:46:00 +0000 http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-155 <p>I'm disapointed that the Sox decided not to extend Big Schill. If they think that they can outbid the Yanks in the off season for a pitcher like Curt, they are crazy.</p> I’m disapointed that the Sox decided not to extend Big Schill. If they think that they can outbid the Yanks in the off season for a pitcher like Curt, they are crazy.

]]> By: Anonymous http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-154 Anonymous Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:28:00 +0000 http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-154 <p>I think it is a mistake not to get Shilling extended at this point before the season starts. He is a veteran influence that the rotation really needs. He has a lot to teach some of the younger pitchers on the team. I hope it does not affect his performance this year.</p> I think it is a mistake not to get Shilling extended at this point before the season starts. He is a veteran influence that the rotation really needs. He has a lot to teach some of the younger pitchers on the team. I hope it does not affect his performance this year.

]]> By: Son of Hamulack http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-153 Son of Hamulack Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:03:00 +0000 http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-153 <p>So this is a question to ask Theo or maybe Bill James...<BR/><BR/>The Sox operate on the general princple that you need to get a discount on every year of a player's contract north of the age 35... or certainly 40. So it's not worth it to pay top dollar to homers, long time (#7) and new (#s 18 and 38) when you can get a younger player less likely to decline in productivity elsewhere for the same money.<BR/><BR/>What I'm wondering is, I've always thought clubs should place a premium on comfort and familiarity? With some notable exceptions (Lowell, Loretta, Foulke), I see a drop off in the first year performance of most players coming to a new club. Then, they get adjusted and do fine. Over the long hual, the Sox could be paying 0.050 through the lineup for churning 4 year contracts instead of renewing players. Or is this theory a total myth?</p> So this is a question to ask Theo or maybe Bill James…

The Sox operate on the general princple that you need to get a discount on every year of a player’s contract north of the age 35… or certainly 40. So it’s not worth it to pay top dollar to homers, long time (#7) and new (#s 18 and 38) when you can get a younger player less likely to decline in productivity elsewhere for the same money.

What I’m wondering is, I’ve always thought clubs should place a premium on comfort and familiarity? With some notable exceptions (Lowell, Loretta, Foulke), I see a drop off in the first year performance of most players coming to a new club. Then, they get adjusted and do fine. Over the long hual, the Sox could be paying 0.050 through the lineup for churning 4 year contracts instead of renewing players. Or is this theory a total myth?

]]> By: Anonymous http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-152 Anonymous Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:54:00 +0000 http://blogs.eagletribune.com/sports/2007/02/22/no-offer-for-you-updated/#comment-152 <p>Hey Rob I love your blog and find myself checking in a few times a day, one question I havn't heard much about some lower prospects who were invited to major league camp, so my question is...who is there? Buccholz? Bowden? Chad Spann? Bryce Cox? and who is looking out of those minor league invitees?</p> Hey Rob I love your blog and find myself checking in a few times a day, one question I havn’t heard much about some lower prospects who were invited to major league camp, so my question is…who is there? Buccholz? Bowden? Chad Spann? Bryce Cox? and who is looking out of those minor league invitees?

]]>