Somebody claimed Beckett off waivers. Dodgers maybe.

I know it's not the same thing since these are the revocable waivers, but it brought back Manny memories.

http://tinyurl.com/7hsfa

My father-in-law (sox fan) always said the 2004 miracle started here, when the Yankees didn't just snatch Manny off the pile and stick him at DH. It would have been ultimate in-your-face-iest move ever for George. It would be in paragraph one of his obit.

The Dodgers claimed Gonzalez and Becket. Big trade in the works? I can't imagine Gonzalez (The Sox best offensive player) being traded, but you never know. I imagine that they will let Becket go even if a trade isn't worked out.

I would love to see Donnie get AGon. Never been a big Dodgers fan, until recently.

Now reports include Crawford and Nick Punto. Wow. Blowing up the team.

I don't think Crawford can be traded. He's on the DL.

But there's something I don't understand. If the Dodgers claimed Beckett and Crawford, why don't the Red Sox just say, "See ya"? Is that not how it works -- can the Dodgers add, "... but only if you pay half their salaries and give us A-Gon too"?

If they can't work out a deal the Sux can pull him back or can give him away for the Dodgers to pay. Don't think the Dodgers can renege if Sox let him go.

[7] Yeah. That's how we ended up with Jose Canseco that year.

That's what I thought. But then, the Dodgers must be nuts.

And what about Beckett's 10-5 rights? Can he veto?

[9] I believe he can veto, but wouldn't he want a change of scenery, especially in a more pitcher friendly league & park?

Okay, Ben Nicholson-Smith tweeted this:

"Gonzalez can't block a trade to Los Angeles, but Beckett must approve any assignment as a player with ten and five rights."

Also, Crawford cleared waivers earlier this month, so maybe the DL thing doesn't matter.

[10] I don't know -- but he might prefer not to disrupt his family, or he might have some problem with moving to LA. Josh is apt to be more interested in non-baseball features of the situation than you might think.

Bobby Valentine is essentially denying the trade rumors, but of course (i) he's kind of full of shit, and (ii) there is some doubt as to whether he's in the loop...

[12] Or he could use it as leverage for more money. May be add a year or two to his contract. He may have already given his consent. Can't imagine them not going to him first.

Of course, this is a management that thought Bobby V. was the best candidate out there.

Jeter is like the house on the top of this post. And man, I lost track of yesterday's Sox game, but I just found out they lost. Hysterical. : )

[15] A BRUTAL loss. Did you check out the box score?

Can someone tell me how 'revocable waivers' work? How is it different from 'regular' waivers?

[17] I know it means the team can just "pull him back" at any time, even after the claim. Besides that, I don't think it means anything.

A-Gon is scratched from tonight's line-up!
And Loney was scratched from the Dodgers'.

I'm starting to believe this is a real trade.

[17][18] Until this year, I never knew there was more than one kind of wavers in MLB...and I am usually fairly good with rules minutiae.

Well that's one way to keep Jeter from hitting.

Doing less with more.

[20] Where's William when you need him?

I don't know who makes these batting helmets, but Jeter owes someone a dinner.

[20] I would not have guessed that. :)

Jazz Princess' b-day today, she demands a win and retribution for hitting Jeter!

jump throw!

[OYF] Some of us were watching last night but I checked out at 9-9. Then looked again at 11-9 and figured the Sox would win. Stupid me.

Wait..the Sox are dumping A-Gon??! I feel dopey and uninformed..

So, according to the always accurate Wikipedia:

If a team claims a player off waivers and has a viable claim as described above, his current team (the "waiving team") may choose one of the following options:
1. arrange a trade with the claiming team for that player within two business days of the claim; or
2. rescind the request and keep the player on its major league roster, effectively canceling the waiver; or
3. do nothing and allow the claiming team to assume the player's existing contract, pay the waiving team a waiver fee, and place the player on its active major league roster.
If a player is claimed and the waiving team exercises its rescission option, the waiving team may not use the option again for that player in that season—a subsequent waiver would be irrevocable with a claiming team getting the player essentially for nothing.

So, if I read that correctly, irrevocable waivers means that the waiving team cannot rescind their decision to waive....that means that if the players is claimed, he's going to the claiming team one way or another (although I imagine player veto rights trump this).

Now, can a team jump immediately to irrevocable waivers, or are irrevocable waivers invoked only when a player has been waived, claimed, and pulled back already once in the same season?

[28] They aren't "dumping" him, I think. Rather, I imagine they are working on a big trade. If it doesn't pan out, they'll probably pull him back. Beckett on the other hand...

[30] If they can get rid of the Crawford contract that would be an incredible achievement..but why A-Gon? He's a super player...

Indians announcers just called Bayles an idiot.

Damn, getting the sound feed but no visuals on mlb.com TV..oh well, Kay in the background without watching the game is sure to be enlightening and informative.

[31] It all depends what they get in return, no?

[31] He's already 30 y.o. and will make 21.5 million/year until he's 36. That's a lot of money to be able to free up.

[34] Reports are James Loney and some other claptrap...doesn't sound like much..

Are Kay & Co making fun of Nick Punto right now?? :)

If Valentine keeps his job and everybody else goes, we can call it the Valentine Stays Massacre.

[37] Boom! :)

Where is thelarmis, I want to talk about the upcoming Ornette Coleman gig here the Big Mikan..

[36] 140, 162, 152, 153, 113

Gonzalez's OPS+ since 2008 (when he was 26). The Sox paid a premiu price for a player coming out of his peak seasons. Is this season a blip or a signal that he's entering a decline?

Lame. Drill 'em in the ass!

Extra fucking lame. Dammit.

Lot.

I feel like the entire staff not named Kuroda has turned into Catfish Hunter.

[39] Going rate for 1B is high and A-Gon was awesome last year..his game seems perfect for Fenway and would likely age well..I don't get it. Teams with the BoSox payroll should never dump salary for nothing in return, it's shameful.

[44] It's only dumping payroll for nothing if they don't flip the money saved into something else. Surely they can get equal or better value at 1B/DH in a couple of year than by paying what will then be an aging player 21 million.

Frankly, I wish the Yankees would explore more options like this.

Atta boy, Mark. Keep the bat on your shoulder and hope for the best.

[45] But that seems odd..you sign a free agent to a huge deal and then trade him after less than 2 seasons because OTHER players (Crawford, Lester, Beckett) have not produced? If you were are free agent and saw how the Sox operated now would you sign with them? They seem to be an organization with no clear strategy at all.

I like the Yanks paying Teix and CC. Solid, dependable, productive players that they can easily afford.

Phew.

For as many times as the Red Sox are considered Yankees northeast, the yanks go to the postseason every year without fail, the sox mix in a lot of golf.

Holy shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Sox dump Beckett, AGon AND Crawford.
Great move for them.
LA must be nuts.

47] Of course the Yankees can't "easily afford" their players, hence trash heap signings like Ibañez.

If I were a free agent, I would probably be looking for the best deal. What do I care how the Red Sox "treat me", if that means I play a couple of years in Fenway then get traded to, say, the Dodgers, who still pay me all of the money I signed for?

More directly addressing your main question: why is it od to sign a player for a long contract then trade him only two years into it? After two seasons (heck, after one season) the context has changed. Teams should *always* re-evaluate every player on the roster every season. maybe the Sox are admitting that they need a more structural rebuilding. If so paying 21.5 million/year to a 30-36 y.o. 1B makes little sense.

Also, I am not sure why you pin all of the underperformance on players besides Gonzalez. He's been a pretty big disappointment for him as well.

[49] Yep. I was shocked by FanGraphs rating the Sox the #2 organization in baseball after all the nonsense there with Lucchiano, terrible free agent signings and now missing the post season for 3 straight years.

BOSTON -- The Dodgers and Red Sox are closing in on a deal that would send Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett, Carl Crawford and Nick Punto to Los Angeles, though a few hurdles remain before it's official, multiple baseball sources said Friday.

Pitcher Rubby De La Rosa will be headed back to Boston... Also included are first baseman James Loney and prospects Ivan De Jesus (infielder) and Jerry Sands (outfielder), according to sources, plus another top prospect that is still unknown

[50] According to mlbtraderumors:

The Red Sox and Dodgers are closing in on a trade that would send Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett, Carl Crawford and Nick Punto to Los Angeles, Gordon Edes of ESPNBoston.com reports (on Twitter). Hurdles remain, but the sides continue working toward a deal.

Yep, they managed to dump more than $250 million---more than $50 million next year alone---in salary on players 30 y.o. or older, all at once. It's frigging brilliant.

How are the Yankees not ahead by four or five runs this game?

Why would anyone.... ANYONE take the Crawford Contract???

Can we please take advantage.

[56] The mind boggles. Then again, someone took Vernon Wells.

[51] You are assuming that all players always take the most money regardless of the team/location. Also, you are assuming that every team should "re-evalute" and adjust on a seasonal basis, mixing and matchign players at will. This is fine for fantasy but not for a ballclub made up of real people. What team has ever won consistently with the approach? There is a reason the Yankees make the playoffs practically every year; solid core + rotating minor pieces.

The Sox will go on a shoppingg spree this winter. Melky? He should be cheap. Upton? This is Dice-K's last year.

[54] You are correct that this is a great move for the Sox. They needed a shake up. They will now be a very young team.

Classic "bad feeling" game brewing here.

Would the Sox go for Hamilton?
Really, they can afford anyone now.
With our luck, they will find somebody to take Lackey.

Just to try to bring the talk back to reality:
there's no way the Dodgers are taking on all that salary. The Red Sox would have to pay. Nobody is saying how much, though.

[63] I am really struggling to understand all the Sox-praise on Twitter, etc for this deal. They have given up..they have a HUGE financial advantage over every team except the Yanks and now maybe the Dodgers. They have an awful recent history with Free Agents, why do people think it's such a great move for them? Sox will now miss the playoffs three years in a row..

[59] Are you assuming they do not? I imagine players sign for teams driven by a variety of motives. That is why I do not wonder, as do you, why a free agent would ever sign with the Sox. Money talks loud enough...someone will sign.

This is fine for fantasy but not for a ballclub made up of real people. What team has ever won consistently with the approach? There is a reason the Yankees make the playoffs practically every year; solid core + rotating minor pieces.

I'm not sure what you say necessarily contradicts my point. Are you suggesting that teams sign players to longterm contracts, creating a stable core, and then cease to evaluate those players, ever? really?

I think that isan absurd way to build a ball club. Yes, every player including your core players should be re-evaluated every season. That does not necessarily mean that you constantly swap in and out players each season, or get rid of all your stars willy nilly. On the other hand, that doesn't mean you won't occasionally cut your losses, or change course, or however you want to put it.

Are the Sox looking to rebuild? If they are, then dumping a 30+, underperforming (this season), expensive longterm contracted 1B is exactly the right move. That you signed him only a year or two before is irrelevant to the present calculation in the current context.

[63] Yeah, that's the 250 million dollar question. If the Dodgers take on a lot, is an absolute coup for the Sox, despite Jazz's bewilderment. ; )

[64] They have to do something. They can't go into next season with the same roster, and with the huge contracts they have almost no flexibility. So at least this gives Ben C. a shot.
Hey, it's a bold move.

Dumping Agon is a bit of a wash. He is still a talented player (was) on a dysfunctional team. Dumping Beckett was good. Dumping Crawford was fucking brilliant!

[68] Depends how much of Beckett's and Crawford's salary Boston pays (as monkeypants notes).

[65][66] Ok, I am beginning to see your point. HOWEVER, if you are a Sox fan (Mo forbid) and you see John Henry's wealth..and you see the awful free agent signings and now the team giving up on this year and most likely last year to "rebuild"..well, I am VERY happy the Yankees do not operate like this. The Sox are making this deal assuming that they will be a better team going forward..that is not assured..And I like it for the Dodgers. Look at their lineup now compared to the beginning of the year!

Meanwhile: good to have CC back.

OK, I've logged back onto to watch Jeter bat. Maybe he can hit another HR, or at least an exta base hit. Then the team has a chance to score.

From Yahoo Sports/Passan:

Gonzalez was pulled from Boston's lineup in Friday night's game against the Kansas City Royals. The details of the proposed trade are the only stumbling block at this point, and they are not insignificant. The teams continue to haggle over the amount of money the Red Sox would send to the Dodgers to offset the $262.5 million in future salaries for the four veterans who would go to Los Angeles as well as the quartet of prospects who would accompany first baseman James Loney to Boston.

In addition, Beckett, who has 10-and-5 rights that allow him to veto any trade, would need to accept the deal, and because of the amount of money expected to change hands, MLB commissioner Bud Selig would have to approve it.

[70] Right, it probably does mean at least another year of rebuilding. (More, would be my guess.)

But maybe you don't understand what a disaster the team is. It looks hopeless. They have a few prospects in their system, and DeLaRosa might be really good, and they could be selective with big free agent signings... they could be good again sooner by tearing things apart now.

It won't be easy, though. The Rays could be our main rivals for a while.

Lucky. And good, of course. But also a little lucky there.

UH-OH, does this mean Swisher bunts?

[76] No.

Thanks Nick!

[74] Are they "really" that awful though? The lineup is still great..and you can see Lester/Bucholz/Dubront next year as a solid top three..

You know, I think I am just philosophically opposed to any form of giving up or salary dumping in baseball. That goes for the Astros too. There is nothing to admire about putting out such awful lineups and losing that many games. You should be trying to win ball games as much as possible, not rebulding towards some elusive future success.

BOOM go Swish!

Woo-Hoo!

Yay!

[72] Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Suspicious. Were you in the future when you wrote that?

[79] Yes, that's a good point. They do score a lot of runs, and Buchholz and Lester and Doubront could all be better next year. And this year they have a really horrendous record in close games, which means they've likely had a lot of bad luck.

But the clubhouse is a disaster.

[82] AH! So you DO believe in "chemistry" then? I remember getting quite the virtual scolding from you about that last year regarding the Sox collapse! :P

[81] Was I, am I , or will I be? It's pretty hard to explain within the linear constraints of language.

Last year, when asked about the Boston collapse. AGon was not that upset and said something to the effect "if God wanted it this way, who was he to questionit?".

That is not Boston attitude. Agon is not a leader type... just a quiet type.

Jazz... they dumped Crawford (who just has TJ surgery. That alone, makes this a good deal for Boston. The Crawford signing (7/$142m) was known by many to be a terrible deal before the ink was try. It was a mistake, and they are lucky to get out from under.

At this point, Beckett had to go. He can still pitch, but he has been a drag on the team.

Indians, I don't need to see Mo's injury again. It's seared into my memory.

[82] et al. Yeah, they've scored a lot of runs this year despite injuries. But can that be expected to continue going forward? They have a 36 y.o. DH who appears resurrected, and a 21.5 million dollar/year underperforming (this season) 30 y.o. 1B, and a league average (this season) 2B as the cornerstones of the offense. According to baseball-reference, they have the third oldest offense in the league. Their OPS+ is just below the AL average. Their OBP is only 6th.

Maybe the organization figures that the offense cannot be depended on going into next season.

RoSo time.

[83] Well, I honestly don't think chemistry would prevent them from winning, but I think Lucchino is sick and tired of it, and he thinks it's damaging their brand. And he's a business man. So is John Henry.

[85] You don't seem to understand that whether "dumping Crawford" makes it a good deal depends on how much of Crawford's salary they're going to have to pay. My bet is they will pay through the nose. The problem for them is, one way or another they are going to have to pay the Overpayment Premium. Either they also have Crawford on their team and pay also for his actual performance, or they let LA have him and LA pays for his actual performance. But I expect the Red Sox to be stuck with the overpayment part.

[87] Also a good point.
And, their run production is inflated by Fenway. In real life, they've been very good but not great at producing runs.

[89] But is possible that the Dodgers take on a big chunk of Crawford's contract, perhaps bigger than expected. The Sox do have some leverage by threatening to revoke Gonzalez, whom (I assume) the Dodgers really want.

Ok. looks like one more chance to watch Jeter bat this evening.

[91] It is possible, but my guess is that the A-Gon value will mainly be returned in prospects.

Our old friend Jon Weisman seems to be at least somewhat upset by the loss of DeLaRosa. (Not sure I got the right caps on that one.) And the Sox paid dearly in prospects to get Adrian in the first place, I'm sure you remember.

But yeah, it's obviously a package deal, and presumably the Dodgers do take on some of the excess cost in exchange for getting Gonzalez.

If only Joe's platoon pitching decisions were confined to letting CC pitch to one extra batter, I would never complain about them at all.

When it rains, it pours. From the live blog of the Red Sox game:

Jon Lester threw three straight balls to Billy Butler, and on the last one he grabbed at the back of his left leg.

[93] Was Crawford (or Beckett) also claimed, or was only Gonalez claimed and the other names were thrown in during the subsequent negotiations. It could happen, I guess, that the Gonzalez trade falls through and the Sox rescind his waiver, but allow Beckett simply to leave (with the Dodgers picking up his entire salary, then)...assuming he too was claimed.

[93] One other thing that is perplexing..the Sox are basically getting praise for cutting their losses and a few huge mistakes. To be fair, the A-Gon trade and Crawford deal were not Cherrington's so he can get some credit. But the Sox basically lost Rizzo, Kelly and 30+ million for a year and half of A-Gon..that is craptacular in the extreme.

If you do it right you might have a bad year, but you never have to tear it down and start over and stop competing for the World Series for a number of years. Sure they might be good again in a few years. That will be what 4 or 5 years between playoff appearances? In the meantime, the Yankees will just keep winning 90+ games every year.

[98] In the meantime, the Yankees will just keep winning 90+ games every year.

But doesn't this reality---which is aided in part by the Yankees financial advantage---mean that the Sox have to do business differently? I mean, if the Sox were in another division, presumably they would win 90+ games every year.

Plus, I am not convinced that they will have to miss the playoffs *necessarily* for a few years to come. It all depends on (a) how much money they save if the trade goes through, and (b) what they do with that money. They could be awfully dangerous by 2014, when the Yankees go into austerity mode.

[96] The Dodgers claimed Beckett. (But remember that he has 10-5 rights.)
Crawford cleared waivers earlier this month.

[97] Indeed, but that's water under the bridge. As you say, the Crawford signing was just terrible, as was the Beckett extension, as was the Lackey contract. I personally think the A-Gon pick-up was worth it, but I guess they don't. So if they're getting praise now, I guess it's praise for cutting their losses. And teams should be praised for recognizing their mistakes and doing their best to fix them, after all.