Lowell Update: Damage Control Begins Now?

The Boston Herald reports that a "really strong offer" has been extended to Mike Lowell.  Who provided the opinion on the package?  A "club source".

Isn’t that kind of like asking a GOP flack for a report on the Iraq War?

45 comments… add one

  • SF, do you suspect that the Sox are not going to re-sign Lowell?

    Nick-YF November 8, 2007, 6:08 pm
  • I don’t know about SF, but the situation is starting to smell rotten to me.
    I don’t like it.

    LocklandSF November 8, 2007, 6:11 pm
  • I also think we’re gonna lose him now. Probably to the Yankees. That article has ‘good-bye Mike’ written all over it. Fuck.
    Which means we’re gonna have to trade away somethign big for Cabrera. Ugh ugh ugh ugh. Yes, I know the offer says we wont, but what else is there that doesnt suck?
    Im gonna go vomit.

    Dionysus November 8, 2007, 7:05 pm
  • But SF, it says right there in the article that “they are not sending out any take-it-or-leave-it signals to his camp”! Don’t you believe them?
    /sarcasm
    I do hope that they sign Lowell, but if he holds out for more than 3/$39 or so – either in years or dollars – I think it would be the right move to let him go. But I don’t want to give up what would be necessary to give up to get Cabrera, and the other options for 3B are rather unappetizing… so I really, really hope they sign Lowell.

    Jackie (SF) November 8, 2007, 7:28 pm
  • I think I’d give him four years. Im ok with that. Im pretty sure I am. Or I’m desperate.

    Dionysus November 8, 2007, 7:34 pm
  • Maybe they could compromise on a heavily incentivized (not a word?) fourth year. I don’t think the FO will guarantee $12-13m for a 37 year old 3B, nor should they.

    Jackie (SF) November 8, 2007, 7:40 pm
  • I have no idea, Nick, but this story has “Sox front office starting to play the PR game” written all over it. At the least, they are preparing for him walking.
    That doesn’t mean he will walk, necessarily.

    SF November 8, 2007, 7:42 pm
  • i gotta agree with you SF, this is the exact M.O. that they have used to toss other popular players out. Im sure they have a plan though and Im sure the sox will end up with cabrera or A-Rod. They are the new yankees after all!
    ; )

    sam-YF November 8, 2007, 7:48 pm
  • but what else is there that doesnt suck?
    I don’t want to give up what would be necessary to give up to get Cabrera, and the other options for 3B are rather unappetizing
    There must be some other halfway decent 3B on the free agent market. Maybe Scott Boras has an idea or two?

    Paul SF November 8, 2007, 11:48 pm
  • Wow, that article is scary.
    It’s not a “take it or leave it” offer, but “in case he does not [agree to the offer], they are preparing to move in other directions …”
    Hmm. Sounds kinda take it or leave it-ish to me.

    Paul SF November 8, 2007, 11:50 pm
  • Im hoping Red Sox Monster’s take on it, as well as Texas Gal’s over at Out In Centerfield, is more correct. More than Pedro, more than Johnny… losing Lowell jsut feels WRONG. Pedro I knew was nearign an end. Johnny.. well.. I wont deny that it shocked me, but it made sense. Lowell, just.. doesnt. Give him four years. We can afford it.
    In brighter news, we maybe looking to includ Coco Crisp (probably a few other pieces… Bowden?) for Salty from the Rangers.
    An actualy backup catcher with promise to be a starter? HELL YES

    Dionysus November 9, 2007, 1:17 am
  • First of all, the article does sound like it’s setting us all up for a goodbye to Mikey. Having said that, remember a week ago when all of us were 99% sure Schilling was gone? All of those articles were even more certain.
    Secondly, Dionysus where are you hearing that news about Salty? That would be AMAZING. After the Braves traded him for Texiera I was hoping the Sox could snag him up later.

    Atheose November 9, 2007, 8:29 am
  • Nevermind, I found it Dionysus.
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/baseball/rangers/stories/110907dnsporangers.33ff0ef.html
    It’s only a brief mention, but promising. Snagging a future catcher of his calibre would be amazing; as much as I love ‘Tek, we need someone for later.
    Also, I don’t think Lowell will go to the Yankees–there have already been several reports that said their talks have broken down.

    Atheose November 9, 2007, 8:32 am
  • Sorry for the three-post, but I saw this bit and had to post it. Boras thinks the Sox are going to trade Julian Tavarez:
    “They know the market, we know the market – obviously, he’s a starting pitcher, he’s got that value, so the Red Sox are going to get a pretty good player for him,” Boras said.
    Boras believes the Red Sox will explore trading Tavarez.
    “I think it’s one of their options, depending on what kind of depth they want in their bullpen,” said Boras. “He wants to go somewhere where he can be a starter, he wants to start.”

    Definitely interesting. Considering how helpful he was during 2007 (his willingness to pitch any time on a few minutes’ notice) I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Sox move him, especially in a trade with Coco. Tavarez and Coco for Salty?

    Atheose November 9, 2007, 8:38 am
  • Salty will require a LOT more than that, Atheose. I think it’s more likely the Sox acquire Laird.
    The Herald this morning says that “really strong” offer the Sox made to Lowell was 3 years at $12M-$15M per.
    That actually is really strong. Assuming it’s not a smokescreen.

    Paul SF November 9, 2007, 8:42 am
  • I don’t think the Sox would throw out false Lowell-related numbers to the media. At least I hope not.

    Atheose November 9, 2007, 8:50 am
  • The yankees havent even been able to talk to Lowell yet so there is no way their talks with him have broken down.
    Lowell could still easily go back to the sox, it seems like he is waiting for his full free agency to kick in before he jumps on an offer. Posada seems set to do much the same for us. I cant say i blame them, right now, these guys have zero leverage over their current team as far as numbers go due to the exclusive window they have.

    sam-YF November 9, 2007, 9:03 am
  • I was reading this article Sam: http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-spthird085451532nov08,0,3432116.story?coll=ny-homepage-big-pix
    Which mentions that Cashman has been talking to Lowell’s agents, the Levinson brothers, because they are also Posada’s agents. The article says that the agents did not believe the Yankees have any chance of signing Lowell.
    I suppose that’s not the same as “talks have broken down”, but in general I meant that it looks like it isn’t going to happen now.

    Atheose November 9, 2007, 9:22 am
  • Thanks Atheose.
    That may be true, but if the sox do fail to lock him up I think its possible that the yanks could swoop in with a bigger offer. This is all pretty tough from a YF prospective. On one hand, Lowell is the best 3b free agent out there and taking him from the sox would be nice since he played such a key role in their winning. On the other hand, im not sure that he puts up numbers like he did this year ever again and how much leaving fenway would hurt him. Also, the sox losing them puts them in a position of having a gaping hole at 3b with a PR hit from losing a very popular player. This may sound good from a YF’s prospective until you figure out how they would fix such a problem. The two best options to do so, named alex and miguel, scare me lots. So from that prospective Id like the sox to sign Lowell and move out of the 3b market. Ah the hot stove….

    sam-YF November 9, 2007, 9:41 am
  • No offense, but I am not as beholden to Lowell as you guys. He was a throwaway from the Marlins…he has a free agent year. But he is 34. I’d rather be prudent (a la Johnny Damon who is now a broken down part time left fielder) than nostalgic.

    DCSoxFan November 9, 2007, 10:08 am
  • Carter is tearing up the Venezuela Winter League (batting over .400 after 23 games), so if Lowell slips away we can always move Youk back to 3rd and have Carter at 1st. But I think Lowell would give us more production offensively, defensively and chemistryly.
    Chemistryly isn’t a word you say? Go to hell.

    Atheose November 9, 2007, 10:17 am
  • I understand your point, DCSF, and I’ve thought about that before. But Damon in his contract year stumbled badly at the end and was showing all the signs of wear that would make a four- and five-year dear inadvisable. Plus, Scott Boras had the Sox thinking Damon was getting just ridiculous offers from the Yankees, when in fact he wasn’t (at least not AS ridiculous).
    Lowell, on the other hand, has shown no signs of age affecting him — in fact, 2007 was the first year in a while (if ever) that he hasn’t slumped in the second half. That to me sets him apart from Damon — along with the fact that he plays a less phyically bruising position and clearly benefits greatly being a righty in Fenway (also unlike Damon). I think going forward at 34 Lowell has more possibility to recoup value over a three- or four-year deal than Damon did after 2005.

    Paul SF November 9, 2007, 10:37 am
  • I understand your point about Damon’s second half with the Sox in 2004, but isn’t the general rule that fast athletic players like Johnny age better than slow relatively unathletic ones such as Lowell?

    Nick-YF November 9, 2007, 11:00 am
  • In general yes Nick, but it’s probably better to look at each specific player rather than a generalization. As Paul said Lowell has shown no signs of physically breaking down, whereas Damon was a train wreck waiting to happen.

    Atheose November 9, 2007, 11:02 am
  • That might be true, Nick, but I think Damon punishes his body more than your typical player. He’s still suffering the affects of his concussion in 2003, after all, bever mind the countless times he’s slammed into walls, etc.
    Last year with the Sox was 2005, fwiw. He was well in the lead for the batting title entering August, batting around .340, and finished well out of the running. Over the last 43 games, he hit .253/.317/.322

    Paul SF November 9, 2007, 11:08 am
  • But Paul’s 2004 2nd half argument doesn’t seem to hold true for what he did in his first year with the Yanks. I mean I agree that Damon’s deterioration at this point probably could have been predicted. But when I watch Lowell, even coming off this season, I’m not optimistic that he’ll age well. His game seems dependent on quick reflexes and I would guess those slow as you get older. Without them, what does Lowell exactly have going for him? This obviously is just my opinion but I wouldn’t be excited if the Yanks signed Lowell to a long-term deal.

    Nick-YF November 9, 2007, 11:08 am
  • err…2005

    Nick-YF November 9, 2007, 11:09 am
  • Lowell’s defense is the only thing I would miss. And let’s remember Damon did not show up until game 7 of the ALCS, before that he was awful. Lowell was superb throughout the 2007 playoffs.
    In addition, I think the Sox need to be careful and not overplay their hand. They are the WS champs. Take a breath. If Lowell does not accept, I am not going to immolate myself. However, if the Cabrera thing picks up steam, I am reaching for the matches.
    They are talking about converting Cabrera to 1st base (why I don’t know). We’ve already done the over-weight 1st baseman (Mo Vaughn) and I don’t want to lose Ellsbury or Lester or Bucholz. If Morgan still ran the team, this is the kind of deal he would love.
    And we’d see another gem develop on another team like Bagwell.

    DCSoxFan November 9, 2007, 11:35 am
  • Even in 2006, Damon hit .200 in the final month, and he never hit like he had in the first half of 2005, though his power did return better than ever.
    I agree there is an aging risk with Lowell that is generally understated by the Boston media and fans — much like there is an aging risk with A-Rod that is similarly understated: That his past performance is somehow evidence of his long-term future performance. A three-year deal, with an incentivized fourth, mitigates much of that concern for me. A guaranteed four-year deal would make me much more nervous.

    Paul SF November 9, 2007, 11:38 am
  • Not that I disagree with the concerns about Cabrera, but he is a mite better than Larry Andersen, no?

    Paul SF November 9, 2007, 11:39 am
  • Don’t worry DCSF, the front office has been pretty adamant that they don’t want to lose Ellsbury, Lester or Buchholz. I think they’ll bring Carter up to play First Base and move Youk to 3rd before they trade for Cabrera.

    Atheose November 9, 2007, 11:54 am
  • This is off-topic but anyone in the market for a car should take a look at Manny’s old ride which is for sale on ebay…
    http://tinyurl.com/yoj7eo

    sam-YF November 9, 2007, 2:27 pm
  • So we’re equating Engel Beltre (rookie league) to Jeff Bagwell (AA/AAA)? Larry Andersen to Eric Gagne or Miguel Cabrera?
    Let’s get a grip.

    Paul SF November 9, 2007, 3:28 pm
  • Skimming over the unnecessarily aggressive ranting, I had two questions:
    Is the goal of a season to win the World Series or develop young prospects?
    Are young prospects more valuable than young, proven veterans?
    Everyone who knew the Sox farm system but Lou Gorman thought Bagwell was a great prospect. As I recall, the Astros didn’t even expect to get Bagwell except Gorman volunteered him. So let’s get off the high horse, Pete — oh, I’m sorry, “George”.

    Paul SF November 9, 2007, 5:54 pm
  • trading prospects for relief pitchers is never a good idea.
    In 1995, it was a very good idea.

    Paul SF November 9, 2007, 7:30 pm
  • Why’s Paul talking to himself?

    Mike YF November 9, 2007, 8:53 pm
  • Comments were deleted from a poster who has been banned from this site.

    SF November 9, 2007, 8:56 pm
  • I don’t understand – who’s George?

    Mike YF November 9, 2007, 9:04 pm
  • See above comment, Mike. “George” was a cover name for a banned commenter with, sadly, a dynamic IP.

    SF November 9, 2007, 9:22 pm
  • Wait, but if he has a dynamic IP, how do you know it’s the same person? You could end up banning any one who might disagree.
    Even a dynamic IP is issued with the same first three sets of digits and only the last set changes. Did those match?

    Mike YF November 9, 2007, 9:35 pm
  • The Gagne deal was a stinker in retrospect, that is without question. BUT, the Sox got an eyeful of Gagne when he was with the Rangers this year and they liked what they saw.
    I think the Sox believed they needed someone besides Oki for reliable late inning work because (it is obvious now)Oki was showing greater signs of the fatigue that eventually shut him down in Sept.
    Who couldve predicted that Gagne would pitch SO horribly for the Sox, as I recall, a vast majority thought it was a great pick-up.
    Personally, I didn’t… not because I thought Gagne would stink, I was afraid he might destroy the chemistry of the bullpen.
    Of course I didn’t know Oki was so run down, nor did I know that in the end, Gagne would lose four games for us and have only ONE clean inning, in a post season blow-out.
    Gagne, in 184 save opportunities prior to joining the Red Sox had blown only 7 saves.
    He was 0-3 in those situations for the Sox and had an ungodly ERA
    That could not have been predicted.
    I just hope that Kason Gabbard doesn’t turn out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. He looked to me to have a bright future in a Sox uniform…

    Brian November 9, 2007, 9:38 pm
  • I was excited when I thought Dye might be coming to the Sox, mainly because an outfield of Coco, Drew, and half a Manny Ramirez was an offensive nightmare. I was less excited about Gagne.
    We all considered the bullpen the greatest strength of the club, and I don’t think anybody considered it particularly shallow (MDC, Lopez, and Timlin had all been reliable), so it was something of an extraneous move. I got the feeling that Theo made the move so that people wouldn’t criticize his lack of deadline deals as in ’06. I can’t imagine what crazy pills he was on to get rid of Kason Gabbard, and I hope he doesn’t take them again during discussions on Jacoby or Clay…

    Kazz November 10, 2007, 10:37 am
  • For the record, Gabbard’s ERA in Texas was over 5. He never projected to be anything more than a No. 4 starter, and with Beckett, Matsuzaka, Lester and Buchholz all already better than or close to that level, there was never going to be much room for him. The big risk in the Gagne deal was Beltre, and Beltre remains incredibly young, put up good numbers in a short-season rookie league, but has lots of stuff to work on before he truly becomes an A-list prospect.
    As I’ve said before, the Sox correctly predicted their need for a pitcher like Gagne. It’s hard to fault them for acquiring the best pitcher available to fill a need they clearly had the foresight to predict when many people thought they were acquiring an extraneous piece. That he flopped, sadly, is just baseball being baseball.

    Paul SF November 10, 2007, 9:05 pm
  • Yes, but with Lester and Buchholz coming up we had a massive surplus of pitching. Sure you can never have too much pitching, but despite Gabbard’s good starts (beware small sample size) most scouts agreed he was a #3 starter at best. Plus, most would agree Oki needed some rest, and gaining another reliable arm (such as the greatest closer of all time) helped that immensely.

    Atheose November 10, 2007, 9:10 pm
  • Actually, at the time of the trade Lester was the unknown quantity in my mind, especially coming off his cancer. Gabbard looked pretty good 4-0 W-L 3.73 ERA in 7 starts, I thought there was a chance that Lester would be the one to go. In any case if Gabbard is even just an okay MLB pitcher it looks like that trade will be looked on as one of the biggest blunders that still resulted in a Championship, of all time!

    Brian November 10, 2007, 9:33 pm

Leave a Comment