Guess what time it is? It’s Nick Cafardo Wednesday! As a reminder, I’ve omitted the names to protect the guilty from ridicule. This week, I’m going skip all of the BS, and jump right into the questiony goodness that awaits me!
What are your thoughts on Daniel Bard becoming a starting pitcher? And how about Rick Burleson as a managerial candidate?
That’s a very interesting question. Allow me to think about that for a second. In the meantime, what say you Mr. Cafardo?
“The Bard experiment would be interesting, but only if they had a god replacement for him as a set-up man.”*
Did Cafardo really recommend replacing Bard in the bullpen with God? While that’s a very interesting, “out of the box” type of move, I hear he’s pretty busy right now. Unfortunately, he probably won’t be available for the 2012 season. Plus, I hear he’s more interested in being a closer as opposed to a set-up man.
That said, if you’re looking for upside, I recommend going with Satan. Although he has a tendency to lose control in some situations, he’s a fireballer who can really bring the heat. If he can find a way to harness his command, he could really rule the league.
Oh, I’m sorry. What was the question again?
* The Boston Globe has since changed “god” to “good.” Whatever. I’m going with the original incarnation of the piece.
Since the teams that have spent a lot of money have not progressed far in the season and the playoffs do you think that the big spenders will change their approach?
Absolutely! In fact, the high revenue owners will band together, and demand a salary cap during the upcoming Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations. After that, they’ll lower ticket prices, and buy kitties and puppies for everyone that shows up to the park on opening day. Finally, they’ll wrap it up by holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
In other words, no.
In the event the Red Sox are able to trade John Lackey by paying a majority of his remaining contract, do those dollars get included in the total team payroll when figuring out the luxury tax for 2012? What is the tax limit for 2012?
This is actually an interesting question–or well would have been had Lackey been healthy. Let’s answer the question anyway. Ultimately, the Red Sox would be “charged” based on the average annual salary they’re required to pay per the trade agreement. For instance, if the Red Sox agreed to eat $30M of the remaining $45.75M he has left on his contract, $10M per season would get charged to the Red Sox. The remaining $5.25M per season would be charged (for luxury tax purposes) to the acquiring team.
A more interesting question is: what happens if/when the Red Sox exercise Lackey’s injury clause that forces him to pitch for the league minimum in 2015? If the clause is triggered, the annual average value of his contract will drop from $16.5M to $13.8M. $2.7M might not seem like a lot in the grand scheme of things, but when you’re butting up against the competitive balance tax threshold; it can be an important cushion.
I’m surprised to read that the Sox or another club may need to consider locking up $12 million/year for 2 or 3 years to match what David Ortiz is hoping for. What’s your take?
Didn’t I cover this in last week’s mail bag? Well, I guess…sorta. To recap what I said, Ortiz is crazy if he thinks he’s getting 3/$36M out of anyone. I can see him getting a two year deal out of someone, but probably at a reduced average annual value. Designated hitters, even excellent ones like Ortiz, not only have a limited market, but also don’t carry the same value as they did as recently as 2005 or 2006. Teams are looking to get younger, versatile, and more athletic; not older, slower, and one dimensional. For additional info, check out what I said here last week.
Why don’t the Red Sox consider Dennis Eckersley as a possible manager? He’s a great analytical mind and evaluator of talent.
LMAO! ROFL! Clearly, someone is trolling Cafardo, and I can’t say I disapprove. Just in case this is a serious question (and I pray to God it wasn’t), I’ll answer it. No, the Red Sox will not consider Eckersley as a possible manager. While he’s decent in the booth, I’d hardly call him a great analytical mind. Furthermore, he has zero experience as either a coach at the major league level or as a manager in the minor leagues. These facts don’t necessarily rule him out, but they make him an incredibly unlikely candidate to land the job.
If Andrew Friedman had phoned the Red Sox last week asking to be considered for their general manager opening, would the Sox have considered an interview even with Ben Cherington in their back pocket? Also, will the new GM be considered Larry Lucchino’s puppet?
This probably one of the most interesting questions I’ve read in Cafardo’s mailbag. While I can’t imagine Friedman calling the Red Sox brass to request an interview, I can’t imagine they would have turned down his request on the off chance he did. Friedman is young, successful, and incredibly bright. What he’s done in Tampa over the past four seasons is on par (and potentially exceeds) anything Billy Beane did in Oakland during the early years. Given John Henry’s interest in Billy Beane nine years ago, and his decision to hire a young 28 year old Theo Epstein to be his GM; Friedman would certainly be in the running.
That said, Cherington is very well-respected, and has a bright future ahead of him. I have no doubt he’ll be successful in Boston.
I know there were several reasons for the Sox’ collapse, but one reason I don’t hear discussed is why Terry Francona allowed Tim Wakefield to start nine times before he got his 200th win?
Who else did you expect Francona to start in his place? No, seriously. At one point he was trotting out a rotation that consisted of Jon Lester, John Lackey, Wakefield, Andrew Miller, and Kyle Weiland. Clearly, Francona was scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Also, to be fair, Wake wasn’t anywhere near the worst starter during the second half. Lackey, Miller, and Weiland all were vying for that title.
Do you think the Red Sox will bring back Erik Bedard?
As I mentioned earlier today, bringing back Bedard is certainly an option the Red Sox will consider. Though oft-injured, he’s a lefty with a ton of upside. I can see the Red Sox bringing him back on a one year deal on their terms; especially now that Lackey’s lost for all of 2012. Provided they sign some good depth to take his spot in the rotation once he makes his annual trip to the 15-day DL, he could be a fruitful signing. If they can neither sign him on their terms, nor bring in adequate depth; they’ll need to pass.
There seems to only be a couple of major-league ready prospects in the Sox system (Kalish and Lavarnway) at a time when the team needs to start getting younger. Should the front office focus more on shorter free-agent contracts in the off-season and be more protective of prospects at the trade deadline for at least a couple of years?
This might be the smartest, most thoughtful questions ever submitted to the Cafardo mailbag. Let’s all stop for a moment, and revel in it’s glory.
The simple answer to this question is yes, the Red Sox should focus on signing shorter free-agent contracts, while holding onto their prospects a bit tighter. This is how the Red Sox built the 2004 and 2007 championship teams, and it looks to be a good model for building the next one.
If CC Sabathia opts out of his contract, how hard do you think Boston will go after him?
Even with two vacant spots in the rotation, I don’t think the Red Sox will be serious bidders for Sabathia. He’ll probably be looking for a Cliff Lee type deal, and it’s tough to see the team investing $24M per season in a pitcher that’s on the wrong side of 30. Still, I can see them meeting with Sabathia and making a bid for his services in hopes of driving up the price.
No starting pitcher reached 200 innings pitched this year. Kevin Youkilis, J.D. Drew, Marco Scutaro, and Jed Lowrie all missed significant time during the year with injuries. I think the stability and durability of a couple of guys like Michael Young and Mark Buehrle would do wonders for this team.
#facepalm #bashesheadagainstthedesk