SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 30, 2019 15:37:01 GMT -5
I called their budget "ridiculous" and "self-imposed", which I think should address your question... Good thing you're not a fan of any other team in baseball then.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 30, 2019 16:22:35 GMT -5
I called their budget "ridiculous" and "self-imposed", which I think should address your question... Just to be clear, they absolutely do have that option. Well you had asked me why wouldn't I want to improve the team and I do but it appears they do have a "ridiculous" and "self-imposed" budget. In this case imo Holland and these other cheap relievers aren't worth it vs a more reliable option in July. And if he shows he has stuff in July then trade for him.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2019 17:51:55 GMT -5
I called their budget "ridiculous" and "self-imposed", which I think should address your question... Good thing you're not a fan of any other team in baseball then. The thing is, I doubt the Red Sox are actually a particularly high spending team, relative to their actual ability to spend.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 30, 2019 18:04:18 GMT -5
Good thing you're not a fan of any other team in baseball then. The thing is, I doubt the Red Sox are actually a particularly high spending team, relative to their actual ability to spend. Good thing you aren't a fan of any other team with a lot more revenue than the Red Sox, of which there are several. None come within $40 million of the Red Sox. I really hope fans of other teams don't read these complaints about the Red Sox not spending nearly enough money. We sound worse than old Yankees fans now. Maybe the answer is to be smarter with spending money, not dumber.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2019 18:08:38 GMT -5
The thing is, I doubt the Red Sox are actually a particularly high spending team, relative to their actual ability to spend. Good thing you aren't a fan of any other team with a lot more revenue than the Red Sox, of which there are several. None come within $40 million of the Red Sox. I really hope fans of other teams don't read these complaints about the Red Sox not spending nearly enough money. We sound worse than old Yankees fans now. Maybe the answer is to be smarter with spending money, not dumber.The answer to what?
|
|
|
Post by kenster on Jan 30, 2019 18:11:32 GMT -5
As we know, Dombrowski’s MO in the past has been to identify the FA he wants and then pay what it takes to secure his services. Now, I truly hope that is what is going on with Kimbrel. Because if it’s not, this is just pure foolishness not signing a replacement closer. This is a 242 million dollar team poised to repeat. And we are auditioning for a closer? Why take such unnecessary risk? Over a draft position or a few extra dollars? This is just not the year to worry about that.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 30, 2019 18:11:51 GMT -5
Good thing you aren't a fan of any other team with a lot more revenue than the Red Sox, of which there are several. None come within $40 million of the Red Sox. I really hope fans of other teams don't read these complaints about the Red Sox not spending nearly enough money. We sound worse than old Yankees fans now. Maybe the answer is to be smarter with spending money, not dumber. The answer to what? To your issue with by far the highest budget in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 30, 2019 18:29:31 GMT -5
To your issue with by far the highest budget in baseball. Mmmm... nope, not working.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 30, 2019 18:32:18 GMT -5
To your issue with by far the highest budget in baseball. Mmmm... nope, not working. Well good luck.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 30, 2019 20:20:31 GMT -5
Mmmm... nope, not working. Well good luck. Nobody is complaining that the Red Sox are cheap skates. It's that they're drawing a line in the sand that isn't absolutely necessary at a bad time. The Red Sox have gone all out to build the 2018 and 2019 Red Sox. After that we all have an understanding that the core over the next two years could come undone. Most people here aren't calling for the Sox to give Kimbrel some huge multi-year deal. What the complaint is that they've gone this far and aren't finishing off what they need to be doing at this point. It's quite obvious that this team's Achilles heel right now is the bullpen. Barring injuries, they are solid everywhere else but the bullpen, all while they're going to be in a dogfight with an improved Yankees team in what could be the last year that this core is still together. There's an urgency to win this year because we don't know if Xander is our SS next year or if we're looking at a big downgrade. We don't know if Chris Sale is coming back. We're not even sure JD Martinez is coming back and it's probable that Porcello isn't coming back and we don't know how his innings will be filled. All we know is they're going to lose players and try to sneak under the 208 million luxury tax limit in 2020 and after that season we don't even know if our best player is coming back. Likely our CF isn't coming back and we don't have a replacement in the system for him yet unless Duran blossoms and develops rather quickly. I'm all for efficient winning and not having to spend huge $, yada, yada, yada, but there's a time and a place for that, and it isn't in 2019 when the Sox have a real shot at defending their title, something that will be tougher to do in the future considering their farm system is devoid of future Betts, Bogaerts, etc at the moment, don't have starting pitchers coming up that will be impact and are in a division where the Yankees still have their young players improving and are keeping an eye out for Arenado (apparently they like him more than Machado). Just like 2018, 2019 is a year to capitalize on trying to win it all. I really don't care if the Sox go over the upper limit again and if they're forced to spend come July and have to deal away a Lakins or a Hernandez or whoever to address a need that they could have addressed this offseason when there was a lot of options, I think that doesn't make a ton of sense. That's what the pushback is about. It's like going all out for 499 laps of a race and not going full throttle for that 500th lap. At this point the Sox should do everything they can that allows them to get off to as good a start as possible and an unsettle bullpen giving away games would hinder that. We've seen the benefit of that and we've seen the benefit of having space in a division race. I honestly think the starters could "rove" in the post season because they weren't worn down from their division race. That's a luxury they don't have. As scary as Kimbrel could be at times, he locked down the huge majority of leads in 2018 during the regular season. Now, what the Sox are doing with the pen could work. Won't say it can't for sure, but an awful lot has to go right.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 30, 2019 20:38:40 GMT -5
As we know, Dombrowski’s MO in the past has been to identify the FA he wants and then pay what it takes to secure his services. Now, I truly hope that is what is going on with Kimbrel. Because if it’s not, this is just pure foolishness not signing a replacement closer. This is a 242 million dollar team poised to repeat. And we are auditioning for a closer? Why take such unnecessary risk? Over a draft position or a few extra dollars? This is just not the year to worry about that. It's just a few extra dollars to you. But to the owner apparently it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 30, 2019 20:52:23 GMT -5
Nobody is complaining that the Red Sox are cheap skates. It's that they're drawing a line in the sand that isn't absolutely necessary at a bad time. The Red Sox have gone all out to build the 2018 and 2019 Red Sox. After that we all have an understanding that the core over the next two years could come I don't know what jimed thinks though I'm in line with how he thinks with lots of his posts -- and I think most of you are exactly complaining that they are cheap. You want them to spend more. How is that not cheap? You think they should spend more and they aren't, right? You can give any excuse you want as to why but the bottomline is you think they haven't gone far enough to fix the bullpen yet you feel they can spend more, don't you? You've said there is a time and place to worry about dollars. I don't see how you aren't calling them cheap when you say stuff like this because you think they should spend. I think it's established if given the chance we can all spend Henry's money and feel we can establish how much is too little or too much for him. Unfortunately he doesn't feel the same way.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 30, 2019 21:26:26 GMT -5
Nobody is complaining that the Red Sox are cheap skates. It's that they're drawing a line in the sand that isn't absolutely necessary at a bad time. The Red Sox have gone all out to build the 2018 and 2019 Red Sox. After that we all have an understanding that the core over the next two years could come I don't know what jimed thinks though I'm in line with how he thinks with lots of his posts -- and I think most of you are exactly complaining that they are cheap. You want them to spend more. How is that not cheap? You think they should spend more and they aren't, right? You can give any excuse you want as to why but the bottomline is you think they haven't gone far enough to fix the bullpen yet you feel they can spend more, don't you? You've said there is a time and place to worry about dollars. I don't see how you aren't calling them cheap when you say stuff like this because you think they should spend. I think it's established if given the chance we can all spend Henry's money and feel we can establish how much is too little or too much for him. Unfortunately he doesn't feel the same way. It's context Jim. I'm not calling them cheap. Nor would I be calling them cheap if they're projected to win 85 - 90 games and project to be a good distance behind a first place team where the extra spending won't matter much. I wouldn't want Henry spending just for the sake of spending. I'd rather see him spend when the extra $ mean something. I'd be calling the Sox cheap if they had an owner with very deep pockets who refuses to ever invest in the team. I don't feel that way about Henry. It's possible to think the Sox didn't spend enough to finish the team off without thinking they're cheap. And yeah, they haven't gone far enough to fix the bullpen. Do you think that I am the only one who honestly feels that way? I think most people who are being honest about it feel that way. I'm a fan, not a company schill. I don't have to praise everything the Red Sox do just because I love that franchise and say stuff like well if they chose to do it, then they MUST be right. Nobody is perfect. I'm certainly not. Last year I thought the Sox erred in not getting bullpen help, but they got away with it, so you could say that perhaps they didn't, yet if Washington didn't back out of the Herrera deal, then Dombrowski obviously would have agreed with me, and thought he needed a bullpen upgrade. I'm not saying the team is going to stink. It's a real possibility that their bullpen issues do hinder them in their race against the Yankees while they take time to sort their pen out. It's not like they're in the AL Central and can withstand a lesser start. I didn't expect them to give Kimbrel 4 years 60 million - I prefer they spend that money on Eovaldi, and I wasn't in the school of thought that they had two get two guys making 10 million plus or whatever, but there were some pitchers out there they could have had for one year that wouldn't impact their ability to reset. It's not my money so they can do what they want, but they certainly could afford it if they wanted to. The Red Sox print money. They have the highest ticket prices in the league just about. Generating revenue (and then add in NESN) is not a big issue for the Red Sox.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 30, 2019 21:57:17 GMT -5
From the article: Now 33 years of age, Holland is not the same pitcher that once featured as one of the game’s most dominant relievers. Indeed, he last pitched as a true relief ace back in 2014. He blew out his elbow in the ensuing campaign and has never fully regained his velocity.Just my opinion but I'll wager the Sox have in-house options superior to Holland. They probably do, but so what? When your strategy is to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks, you want to throw as much stuff as possible. I don't see how bringing in Holland or a Holland-like substance of some sort makes this team worse in any way. ... Yeah, I can't disagree with any of this. We're probably looking at their cost/benefit analysis: cleaning and repainting the wall versus getting some serendipitous creation splattered on there that's worth a few million. Three of those doesn't sound like very much given, say, what Kelly got. But there may be something else at work. Dombrowski's rep is not about waiting around on prospects. His MO has been to push them up the ladder sooner rather than later. As others pointed out, that stuff about not planning on minor leaguers isn't wrong. He's just being diplomatic, carefully choosing his words for popular consumption. Why put unwanted pressure on players by getting media bloodhounds on the trail? I expect they'll try to find out - before the team is well into the season - what they think they have in the minors that will play in a major league pen. The guy may dress like a banker, but that may just be a gambler's lucky suit he's wearing. He's also a man for the season: use them while they're young and very affordable. The players may not like it, but that does look like the current business model.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 30, 2019 22:02:37 GMT -5
It's context Jim. I'm not calling them cheap. Nor would I be calling them cheap if they're projected to win 85 - 90 games and project to be a good distance behind a first place team where the extra spending won't matter much. I wouldn't want Henry spending just for the sake of spending. I'd rather see him spend when the extra $ mean something. I'd be calling the Sox cheap if they had an owner with very deep pockets who refuses to ever invest in the team. I don't feel that way about Henry. It's possible to think the Sox didn't spend enough to finish the team off without thinking they're cheap. And yeah, they haven't gone far enough to fix the bullpen. Do you think that I am the only one who honestly feels that way? I think most people who are being honest about it feel that way. I'm a fan, not a company schill. I don't have to praise everything the Red Sox do just because I love that franchise and say stuff like well if they chose to do it, then they MUST be right. Nobody is perfect. I'm certainly not. Last year I thought the Sox erred in not getting bullpen help, but they got away with it, so you could say that perhaps they didn't, yet if Washington didn't back out of the Herrera deal, then Dombrowski obviously would have agreed with me, and thought he needed a bullpen upgrade. I'm not saying the team is going to stink. I t's a real possibility that their bullpen issues do hinder them in their race against the Yankees while they take time to sort their pen out. It's not like they're in the AL Central and can withstand a lesser start. I didn't expect them to give Kimbrel 4 years 60 million - I prefer they spend that money on Eovaldi, and I wasn't in the school of thought that they had two get two guys making 10 million plus or whatever, but there were some pitchers out there they could have had for one year that wouldn't impact their ability to reset. It's not my money so they can do what they want, but they certainly could afford it if they wanted to. The Red Sox print money. They have the highest ticket prices in the league just about. Generating revenue (and then add in NESN) is not a big issue for the Red Sox.we're just going to have to agree to disagree. As I've said I would pay for Kimbrel if there was no budget because I can see just like everyone else that the bullpen is the weakest spot. But every team has weaknesses. How often is a team projected to win a w/s before season starts with odds greater than 50%? Rare because in part every team has a budget and thus aren't able to fill every position without questions. Which team doesn't have questions? But your last few sentences "tells me" you think the Sox are being cheap. It has nothing to do with being a schill or not. You feel they can spend more and should spend more. In my book that's calling them cheap. It doesn't matter about who agrees we need or not.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 30, 2019 22:08:50 GMT -5
It's context Jim. I'm not calling them cheap. Nor would I be calling them cheap if they're projected to win 85 - 90 games and project to be a good distance behind a first place team where the extra spending won't matter much. I wouldn't want Henry spending just for the sake of spending. I'd rather see him spend when the extra $ mean something. I'd be calling the Sox cheap if they had an owner with very deep pockets who refuses to ever invest in the team. I don't feel that way about Henry. It's possible to think the Sox didn't spend enough to finish the team off without thinking they're cheap. And yeah, they haven't gone far enough to fix the bullpen. Do you think that I am the only one who honestly feels that way? I think most people who are being honest about it feel that way. I'm a fan, not a company schill. I don't have to praise everything the Red Sox do just because I love that franchise and say stuff like well if they chose to do it, then they MUST be right. Nobody is perfect. I'm certainly not. Last year I thought the Sox erred in not getting bullpen help, but they got away with it, so you could say that perhaps they didn't, yet if Washington didn't back out of the Herrera deal, then Dombrowski obviously would have agreed with me, and thought he needed a bullpen upgrade. I'm not saying the team is going to stink. I t's a real possibility that their bullpen issues do hinder them in their race against the Yankees while they take time to sort their pen out. It's not like they're in the AL Central and can withstand a lesser start. I didn't expect them to give Kimbrel 4 years 60 million - I prefer they spend that money on Eovaldi, and I wasn't in the school of thought that they had two get two guys making 10 million plus or whatever, but there were some pitchers out there they could have had for one year that wouldn't impact their ability to reset. It's not my money so they can do what they want, but they certainly could afford it if they wanted to. The Red Sox print money. They have the highest ticket prices in the league just about. Generating revenue (and then add in NESN) is not a big issue for the Red Sox.we're just going to have to agree to disagree. As I've said I would pay for Kimbrel if there was no budget because I can see just like everyone else that the bullpen is the weakest spot. But every team has weaknesses. How often is a team projected to win a w/s before season starts with odds greater than 50%? Rare because in part every team has a budget and thus aren't able to fill every position without questions. Which team doesn't have questions? But your last few sentences "tells me" you think the Sox are being cheap. It has nothing to do with being a schill or not. You feel they can spend more and should spend more. In my book that's calling them cheap. It doesn't matter about who agrees we need or not. One doesn't necessarily mean the other. If they were cheap they wouldn't be anywhere near this position of being neck and neck with the Yankees. I think they should go that last mile to increase the odds that their bullpen performs well. That's not the same as saying they're cheap because they're not. I think they're being a little bit penny wise, pound foolish, but that doesn't mean that I think they're cheap.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 30, 2019 23:43:14 GMT -5
Maybe the answer is to be smarter with spending money, not dumber. The answer to what? You should never go full stupid when you're spending money regardless of how much you're making. Paying Pablo Sandoval close to 20 big ones so he can go on a slurpee spree elsewhere obviously plays a part in them not having that money to spend on a reliever right now. "Yeah but they have that money" - until eventually they don't. They operate in a budget. If it's a fully agreeable and "right" budget, it's another matter. Don't expect one team out of 30 to tell the rest of them to go f*ck themselves to appease people who think professional athletes don't make enough money. That is not a big crowd. This won't be fixed by one lone owner being a rebel and sticking it to the man, this needs to be on a new CBA. It isn't one thing like going berserk and spending way more than everyone else, it's the smaller stuff like teams not paying pre-arb guys peanuts for like 50 years, having some accountability when it comes to payroll and revenue (like a respectable minimum threshold and a more realistic maximum one), paying minor leaguers more and just a heck of a lot of things. Some events for the communities would be nice, why not have really cheap tickets for people who are poor even if for only a few games? Like letting more troublesome schools play sports in the actual stadium, like they can have a league and play at Fenway. Man I'm not a marketing person so I don't know, but just get more people involved. And those come with some compromises from the players as well, like not having fully guaranteed contracts so Pablo Sandoval can be right now on tonight's third Wienerschnitzel’s Pastrami Chili Cheese Fries while on the payroll. Spread the money on who's worth it. Until then, it is what it is. John Henry won't fix this.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 31, 2019 0:20:37 GMT -5
Nobody is complaining that the Red Sox are cheap skates. It's that they're drawing a line in the sand that isn't absolutely necessary at a bad time. The Red Sox have gone all out to build the 2018 and 2019 Red Sox. After that we all have an understanding that the core over the next two years could come I don't know what jimed thinks though I'm in line with how he thinks with lots of his posts -- and I think most of you are exactly complaining that they are cheap. You want them to spend more. How is that not cheap? You think they should spend more and they aren't, right? You can give any excuse you want as to why but the bottomline is you think they haven't gone far enough to fix the bullpen yet you feel they can spend more, don't you? You've said there is a time and place to worry about dollars. I don't see how you aren't calling them cheap when you say stuff like this because you think they should spend. I think it's established if given the chance we can all spend Henry's money and feel we can establish how much is too little or too much for him. Unfortunately he doesn't feel the same way. Frankly how aren't they being cheap? Based on revenue, they are going to spend less while making a ton more. I don't care where they rank because other teams are also being cheap. What the Red Sox can't spend 50% of revenue and the A's can spend well above that? We haven't even talked about the NESN revenue yet either. This isn't even talking about how it's the smart play. Nevermind if you truly believe they'll reset next year they are being crazy cheap because by next year payroll will be like 40% of revenue. Baseball owners are amazing. They have trained fans to just focus on the luxury tax lines and not what matters in every other sport, which is revenue. The tax system was designed so the top teams are always paying the tax, not as an excuse why they will spend less. So more taxes get passed on to lower revenue teams. Given revenues we should have record luxury tax payments, not like all time low amounts.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 31, 2019 8:22:09 GMT -5
I don't know what jimed thinks though I'm in line with how he thinks with lots of his posts -- and I think most of you are exactly complaining that they are cheap. You want them to spend more. How is that not cheap? You think they should spend more and they aren't, right? You can give any excuse you want as to why but the bottomline is you think they haven't gone far enough to fix the bullpen yet you feel they can spend more, don't you? You've said there is a time and place to worry about dollars. I don't see how you aren't calling them cheap when you say stuff like this because you think they should spend. I think it's established if given the chance we can all spend Henry's money and feel we can establish how much is too little or too much for him. Unfortunately he doesn't feel the same way. Frankly how aren't they being cheap? Based on revenue, they are going to spend less while making a ton more. I don't care where they rank because other teams are also being cheap. What the Red Sox can't spend 50% of revenue and the A's can spend well above that? We haven't even talked about the NESN revenue yet either. This isn't even talking about how it's the smart play. Nevermind if you truly believe they'll reset next year they are being crazy cheap because by next year payroll will be like 40% of revenue. Baseball owners are amazing. They have trained fans to just focus on the luxury tax lines and not what matters in every other sport, which is revenue. The tax system was designed so the top teams are always paying the tax, not as an excuse why they will spend less. So more taxes get passed on to lower revenue teams. Given revenues we should have record luxury tax payments, not like all time low amounts. What you say I've highlighted in bold is exactly what I told the poster redsox; That many of you think he's being cheap. He said "Nobody is complaining that the Red Sox are cheap skates. It's that they're drawing a line in the sand that isn't absolutely necessary at a bad time. "I argued he and others such as yourself and fenway are complaining too. So in terms of that, we're in agreement. That was my main argument with him which you replied to. And i just want to make it clear that I'm not complaining that you are complaining. We all like to post on different topics. You want to complain on their spending - fine. But you and fenway and others have mentioned something similar that I've highlighted in italics that something to me that is completely irrelevant to me. And it keeps getting brought up; "a fans focus on the luxury tax lines" or as others put it that they're frustrated with fans such as me because we're either not mad at the owners or don't want the team to improve etc." You might find it interesting to discuss but I don't. I just accept the reality that there is one (i'm sure you do to an extent as well.). For example, I like to discuss what I think they'll go for in terms of reality. I'm not going to beat my head against the wall frustrated with an owner who spends more than anyone else and who has been highly successful. If you want to complain then go for it if that's what you enjoy. I just get the idea that maybe you and others get frustrated with a fan like me because I'm not as mad/upset/frustrated as you are. I prefer to talk about what they are going to do rather than being frustrated with the owner or fans views on revenues. with all due respect - and I mean with all respect I can care less what another fan's view of the team's revenue is. I prefer to talk about what they're going to do. So for me - within the confines of a budget I believe they are under; who they will go after, how long will they wait, and who might they trade is fun to talk about for me. For some of you that are either frustrated or upset or anything similar such as with fans like me because "we're trained" (As a fan I don't even get what that means. For me as a fan I find it more fun to talk what they will actually do and the style of play etc) or I'm not as upset or because I post replies with what I feel is reality I find mind-boggling. And i just want to make it clear again that I'm not complaining that you are complaining.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 31, 2019 8:47:05 GMT -5
You should never go full stupid when you're spending money regardless of how much you're making. Paying Pablo Sandoval close to 20 big ones so he can go on a slurpee spree elsewhere obviously plays a part in them not having that money to spend on a reliever right now. "Yeah but they have that money" - until eventually they don't. They operate in a budget. If it's a fully agreeable and "right" budget, it's another matter. Don't expect one team out of 30 to tell the rest of them to go f*ck themselves to appease people who think professional athletes don't make enough money. That is not a big crowd. I don't want the Red Sox to spend more this offseason because it'll fix baseball. I want to them to spend more because their bullpen sucks and they can f-ing afford to make it better if they want to. It's not complicated.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 31, 2019 8:52:47 GMT -5
Frankly how aren't they being cheap? Based on revenue, they are going to spend less while making a ton more. I don't care where they rank because other teams are also being cheap. What the Red Sox can't spend 50% of revenue and the A's can spend well above that? We haven't even talked about the NESN revenue yet either. This isn't even talking about how it's the smart play. Nevermind if you truly believe they'll reset next year they are being crazy cheap because by next year payroll will be like 40% of revenue. Baseball owners are amazing. They have trained fans to just focus on the luxury tax lines and not what matters in every other sport, which is revenue. The tax system was designed so the top teams are always paying the tax, not as an excuse why they will spend less. So more taxes get passed on to lower revenue teams. Given revenues we should have record luxury tax payments, not like all time low amounts. What you say I've highlighted in bold is exactly what I told the poster redsox; That many of you think he's being cheap. He said "Nobody is complaining that the Red Sox are cheap skates. It's that they're drawing a line in the sand that isn't absolutely necessary at a bad time. "I argued he and others such as yourself and fenway are complaining too. So in terms of that, we're in agreement. That was my main argument with him which you replied to. And i just want to make it clear that I'm not complaining that you are complaining. We all like to post on different topics. You want to complain on their spending - fine. But you and fenway and others have mentioned something similar that I've highlighted in italics that something to me that is completely irrelevant to me. And it keeps getting brought up; "a fans focus on the luxury tax lines" or as others put it that they're frustrated with fans such as me because we're either not mad at the owners or don't want the team to improve etc." You might find it interesting to discuss but I don't. I just accept the reality that there is one (i'm sure you do to an extent as well.). For example, I like to discuss what I think they'll go for in terms of reality. I'm not going to beat my head against the wall frustrated with an owner who spends more than anyone else and who has been highly successful. If you want to complain then go for it if that's what you enjoy. I just get the idea that maybe you and others get frustrated with a fan like me because I'm not as mad/upset/frustrated as you are. I prefer to talk about what they are going to do rather than being frustrated with the owner or fans views on revenues. with all due respect - and I mean with all respect I can care less what another fan's view of the team's revenue is. I prefer to talk about what they're going to do. So for me - within the confines of a budget I believe they are under; who they will go after, how long will they wait, and who might they trade is fun to talk about for me. For some of you that are either frustrated or upset or anything similar such as with fans like me because "we're trained" (As a fan I don't even get what that means. For me as a fan I find it more fun to talk what they will actually do and the style of play etc) or I'm not as upset or because I post replies with what I feel is reality I find mind-boggling. And i just want to make it clear again that I'm not complaining that you are complaining. Not sure if you're referring to me specifically or in a general term, but your take is highly reasonable. What is is. I look at it that they had a "budget" last year and said, you know what - this team is so special it's worth going above and beyond. Well, they're all special every year right? Well.....depends on your theory. I don't expect the Sox to go from 108 wins to 75 wins once they inevitably lose key core members to free agency, but I do think they'll be scrambling to win 90 - 95 with their system not ready to provide impact replacements (I think our system is getting better, but it's really hard to see the next Mookie Betts, the next Bogaerts, the next Devers, the next JBJ, the next Benintendi, the next top notch starting pitcher - I only see relievers and a ton of 3b prospects, and some very intriguing A ball talent), so I don't think that each Red Sox teams' chances are equal. This one in 2019 has a great shot, just like the 2018 one did. Not sure I can say the same for the 2020 team. I think the 2019 team should get the same commitment from Henry as the 2018 team did, but if he draws the line, he draws the line. He's done it in the past and it actually worked swimmingly - in 2004 he walked away from the A-Rod deal over 12 - 16 million which is peanuts in the context of his massive deal - and it did work out alright as I recall. Still, I would have liked to have seem this team get the same all out financial opportunity that the 2018 team got given the circumstances of where this team is in its winning/competitive cycle. And as others have pointed out, that bullpen really has the potential to become a big issue as it has not been really been taken care of this offseason thus far.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 31, 2019 10:44:12 GMT -5
I don't want the Red Sox to spend more this offseason because it'll fix baseball. I want to them to spend more because their bullpen sucks and they can f-ing afford to make it better if they want to. It's not complicated. Every single team could address some weak spot in their team with a free agent signing. Basically none are doing that. Why do you expect the Red Sox, who already have a comparatively gargantuan payroll, to be the one to do it?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 31, 2019 10:46:56 GMT -5
This inaction strikes me as a great moment of analytics-vs-old school decision making.
From a WAR standpoint, there is no real reason to sign Kimbrel. As an example, a very, very mediocre closer like Fernando Rodney is less than 1.5 WAR worse. If got the mythical “replacement” closer, they are still a 100-win team.
But it seems like the concern goes deeper than that. A guy like Barnes has great numbers and stuff... but I’m not sure he has the mentality, something beyond quantifying. There are some guys who just flourish in the role of closer (side note: this is something overlooked when people bash closers and ponder how good starters would be in the role). Further: there is the way certain closers change opponents’ strategies. Great closers shorten games. Mediocre closers, less so.
If I am a committed analytics guy, I’m ok with Barnes as closer on the cheap. Then you need someone to slot in for him in the 8th. But on paper a hopefully-more-fully-recovered Thornburg to Brasier to Barnes is not a huge down grade from Kelly to Barnes to Kimbrel. I just hope games look like that paper.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 31, 2019 11:28:32 GMT -5
I don't want the Red Sox to spend more this offseason because it'll fix baseball. I want to them to spend more because their bullpen sucks and they can f-ing afford to make it better if they want to. It's not complicated. Every single team could address some weak spot in their team with a free agent signing. Basically none are doing that. Why do you expect the Red Sox, who already have a comparatively gargantuan payroll, to be the one to do it? Combination of factors. Their weak spot is rather big and yet had a million rather cheap options to fix it. Fixing it could likely make them tops in predicted wins in the whole league. Hence it would make a big difference. Everyone thinks they reset the tax next year, which means losing a decent amount of talent. So this is your year. It's not like they need an ace that will take a massive long-term commitment. Any team should add players if they can move the needle and are in the Red Sox position. Heck the fact other teams aren't, just means you should do it even more. The only two arguments should be we really don't have the money based on revenue or the move just isn't worth it. Doesn't move the needle versus the cost. I look at the Yankees and their weak spots are rather minor. I look at the Dodgers, same thing. Can you say that about the Red Sox right now?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 31, 2019 11:39:37 GMT -5
I don't want the Red Sox to spend more this offseason because it'll fix baseball. I want to them to spend more because their bullpen sucks and they can f-ing afford to make it better if they want to. It's not complicated. Every single team could address some weak spot in their team with a free agent signing. Basically none are doing that. Why do you expect the Red Sox, who already have a comparatively gargantuan payroll, to be the one to do it? If you're successfully convincing me of anything here, it's that I need to make sure my MLB.TV subscription doesn't renew this year. Every single team could address some weak spot in their team with a free agent signing. Basically none are doing that. Why do you expect the Red Sox, who already have a comparatively gargantuan payroll, to be the one to do it? Combination of factors. Their weak spot is rather big and yet had a million rather cheap options to fix it. Fixing it could likely make them tops in predicted wins in the whole league. Hence it would make a big difference. Everyone thinks they reset the tax next year, which means losing a decent amount of talent. So this is your year. It's not like they need an ace that will take a massive long-term commitment. Any team should add players if they can move the needle and are in the Red Sox position. Heck the fact other teams aren't, just means you should do it even more. The only two arguments should be we really don't have the money based on revenue or the move just isn't worth it. Doesn't move the needle versus the cost. I look at the Yankees and their weak spots are rather minor. I look at the Dodgers, same thing. Can you say that about the Red Sox right now? Yeah, exactly. I'm pretty darn sure that this team could actually sign Machado and they would still be wildly profitable, but we're not even asking for that or anything close to it. We're asking for low-cost reinforcements at an obvious area of need, for a team that faces an extremely competitive division next year. And it's demoralizing to know that we're not getting that in favor of some fractional increase in profits.
|
|
|