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 umassgrad2005 on Aug 12, 2019 12:18:28 GMT -5
Reset: No to extending any of the pitchers (now that Sale has been and other key guys are under control). Let Porcello walk. Dump all the #6 starters. Yes to extending Mookie to the absolute limits of the budget. He is one of the best players in the game with more potentially to come. He is the face of the franchise. He could be the next link in the Ted, Yaz, Papi chain. I’d give him Harper money. Start on Devers deal. A lineup with Betts and Devers will pump runs for the next 10 years. Papi and Manny. Rice and Lynn. If money is tightening, maaaayyybee Benny is odd man out, but I hope not. I think most people easily give him Harper money, yet why would he take that? You are likely much closer to Trout money and that's the issue. Espically if he's dead set on becoming a free agent and having every team be able to drive up his price. The question is what do you do if he turns down more than Harper got and won't sign an extension? At that point are you ready to pay whatever the market price is?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 12, 2019 12:41:24 GMT -5
Knowing for an absolute fact that Henry won't re-sign Betts because he's cheap and stating it hundreds of times isn't just a tad bit overboard? First what he says doesn't matter. Second he never once said or implied "Knowing for an absolute fact that Henry won't resign Betts because he's cheap" He simply points out, a bunch of times I'll give you that, that Henry has limits that other similar teams haven't had in the past. We haven't ever blown past the luxury tax line like the Yankees or Dodgers. Who last I knew had season luxury tax bills higher than all of our luxury tax bills combined. The Yankees paid the tax for 15 straight years, the Dodgers blew by the upper tax by over a 100 million before. Overall John Henry is a very good owner. He's done a ton of great things for the Red Sox. Yet it's very reasonable to question his spending because as revenues and profits have exploded he's reduced his payroll to revenue percentages. He's decreased payroll as revenue has greatly increased. Seemed like a perfect time to go for it money wise, yet he didn't. It seems crazy when they have the highest payroll, yet they are middle of the pack in payroll to revenue, which is what really matters. Even then they are lower because most of that NESN money isn't in those figures. You got Henry spending below 50% and other owners at 70 to 80%. Even the years we are tops in payroll we are just spending what we should or less. Which I would be fine with, if from time to time he'd just go crazy profits be damned, yet he hasn't done that. Cheap is likely the wrong word, but he runs the Red Sox like a money making Business, more than other owners do. So while Pedro goes a little over the top, his points are 100% legit. It's no given Henry has the stomach for a massive Trout like deal for Betts. Which Frankly if we are talking something like 13 years I don't blame him. Those deals don't usually end well for the team. Yet Henry can spend more on shorter term deals that carry way less risk and long-term impact. No team has gone over like the Red Sox have since the new CBA and that's the only thing that's relevant. You don't seem to care about the non-financial penalties, but all 30 MLB teams do. Going over the 3rd threshold makes it so you are out at least $500K on the bonus pool, which can easily mean an extra 3-4 HS signings.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,398
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Aug 12, 2019 13:25:03 GMT -5
Reset: No to extending any of the pitchers (now that Sale has been and other key guys are under control). Let Porcello walk. Dump all the #6 starters. Yes to extending Mookie to the absolute limits of the budget. He is one of the best players in the game with more potentially to come. He is the face of the franchise. He could be the next link in the Ted, Yaz, Papi chain. I’d give him Harper money. Start on Devers deal. A lineup with Betts and Devers will pump runs for the next 10 years. Papi and Manny. Rice and Lynn. If money is tightening, maaaayyybee Benny is odd man out, but I hope not. I think most people easily give him Harper money, yet why would he take that? You are likely much closer to Trout money and that's the issue. Espically if he's dead set on becoming a free agent and having every team be able to drive up his price. The question is what do you do if he turns down more than Harper got and won't sign an extension? At that point are you ready to pay whatever the market price is? I’m ready to pay whatever the market price is if it doesn’t demolish the budget. I expect it to be more Harper than Trout, but if I’m wrong, so be it. Here is the thing: why should I expect to pay below market price? It is hypocrisy of fans to expect of Mookie what we would not do in our own professional lives. And if he takes market price, why shouldn’t it be from the Sox? They can afford that. Now, if the numbers don’t add up after positive moves (say, extensions for Devers, Benny, and maybe some great FA signing), well, I suppose these things happen. It is not my preference, but I won’t call for DD’s drawing and quartering if his plan is not my plan... as long as there is a plan.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 12, 2019 14:14:12 GMT -5
Yes. People like different opinions on here, until they don't. Completely wild, they even want you off the message board. Imagine your favorite song. Ok, now imagine someone playing it 50 times, and slowing increasing the volume each time to the point of hearing damage. Does that sound good? No? Huh, everyone likes songs until they don't I guess. Imagine a terrible reference. This had everything to do with Mookie Betts and the relevance of signing him, up until someone came in and decided that he didn't like what I had to say. The Manny Ramirez contract is the only comparable we have to Mookie at the moment, because Manny Ramirez was one of the only contracts that the Sox held while his contract was one of the most expensive in MLB at the time. Add- In fact, the fact that Manny Ramirez is the only point of reference is also a indicator of what the Sox won't do here when it comes to Mookie (offer a market level deal).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 12, 2019 14:20:21 GMT -5
First what he says doesn't matter. Second he never once said or implied "Knowing for an absolute fact that Henry won't resign Betts because he's cheap" He simply points out, a bunch of times I'll give you that, that Henry has limits that other similar teams haven't had in the past. We haven't ever blown past the luxury tax line like the Yankees or Dodgers. Who last I knew had season luxury tax bills higher than all of our luxury tax bills combined. The Yankees paid the tax for 15 straight years, the Dodgers blew by the upper tax by over a 100 million before. Overall John Henry is a very good owner. He's done a ton of great things for the Red Sox. Yet it's very reasonable to question his spending because as revenues and profits have exploded he's reduced his payroll to revenue percentages. He's decreased payroll as revenue has greatly increased. Seemed like a perfect time to go for it money wise, yet he didn't. It seems crazy when they have the highest payroll, yet they are middle of the pack in payroll to revenue, which is what really matters. Even then they are lower because most of that NESN money isn't in those figures. You got Henry spending below 50% and other owners at 70 to 80%. Even the years we are tops in payroll we are just spending what we should or less. Which I would be fine with, if from time to time he'd just go crazy profits be damned, yet he hasn't done that. Cheap is likely the wrong word, but he runs the Red Sox like a money making Business, more than other owners do. So while Pedro goes a little over the top, his points are 100% legit. It's no given Henry has the stomach for a massive Trout like deal for Betts. Which Frankly if we are talking something like 13 years I don't blame him. Those deals don't usually end well for the team. Yet Henry can spend more on shorter term deals that carry way less risk and long-term impact. No team has gone over like the Red Sox have since the new CBA and that's the only thing that's relevant. You don't seem to care about the non-financial penalties, but all 30 MLB teams do. Going over the 3rd threshold makes it so you are out at least $500K on the bonus pool, which can easily mean an extra 3-4 HS signings. This from the guy that loves throwing around "rooting for the Billionaires". I'll give it to the owners they have done a great PR campaign on the fans. The penalty which I certainly care about is less or about equal to signing a qualified free agent and a ton less than it used to be. It's a rather small penalty and certainly not the reason teams aren't spending. It was designed as a rather small penalty so all the big market teams would have no issue blowing by the upper tax line. If they didn't want that, it would be losing a first round pick, not it moves back ten spots. Like look at the draft cap, no one wants you to blow past that, hence you lose two first round picks. Now that is a penalty that can kill a team long-term if you mess up those picks.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Aug 12, 2019 14:42:40 GMT -5
Imagine your favorite song. Ok, now imagine someone playing it 50 times, and slowing increasing the volume each time to the point of hearing damage. Does that sound good? No? Huh, everyone likes songs until they don't I guess. Imagine a terrible reference. This had everything to do with Mookie Betts and the relevance of signing him, up until someone came in and decided that he didn't like what I had to say. Let it go.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 12, 2019 17:06:19 GMT -5
No team has gone over like the Red Sox have since the new CBA and that's the only thing that's relevant. You don't seem to care about the non-financial penalties, but all 30 MLB teams do. Going over the 3rd threshold makes it so you are out at least $500K on the bonus pool, which can easily mean an extra 3-4 HS signings. This from the guy that loves throwing around "rooting for the Billionaires". I'll give it to the owners they have done a great PR campaign on the fans. The penalty which I certainly care about is less or about equal to signing a qualified free agent and a ton less than it used to be. It's a rather small penalty and certainly not the reason teams aren't spending. It was designed as a rather small penalty so all the big market teams would have no issue blowing by the upper tax line. If they didn't want that, it would be losing a first round pick, not it moves back ten spots. Like look at the draft cap, no one wants you to blow past that, hence you lose two first round picks. Now that is a penalty that can kill a team long-term if you mess up those picks. I'm the one accused of rooting for billionaires because I understand that all owners do have budgets. What world do you live in where businesses don't have budgets?
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,398
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Aug 12, 2019 17:37:36 GMT -5
Imagine your favorite song. Ok, now imagine someone playing it 50 times, and slowing increasing the volume each time to the point of hearing damage. Does that sound good? No? Huh, everyone likes songs until they don't I guess. Imagine a terrible reference. This had everything to do with Mookie Betts and the relevance of signing him, up until someone came in and decided that he didn't like what I had to say. The Manny Ramirez contract is the only comparable we have to Mookie at the moment, because Manny Ramirez was one of the only contracts that the Sox held while his contract was one of the most expensive in MLB at the time. Add- In fact, the fact that Manny Ramirez is the only point of reference is also a indicator of what the Sox won't do here when it comes to Mookie (offer a market level deal). What about a $200+ million for Price? And... I guess it is partly relative. I mean, you can say they gave few “Manny” contracts, but by that standard, you can say many teams have never done it. The question is more about top dollar. Sox spent huge on Crawford. Gonzales. Fat Panda. Huge like Manny? No. But huge for those positions. Consider the pay they gave Porcello, at best a #3 starter. The kind of money half the league simply wouldn’t do. How many mega contracts are there? Edit: Adrien G: $154 mill/ 7 years (2012) Manny: $160 mill/ 8 (2001) Price: $217 mill/ 7 (2016) JDM : $110 million/ 5
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 12, 2019 17:48:01 GMT -5
Imagine a terrible reference. This had everything to do with Mookie Betts and the relevance of signing him, up until someone came in and decided that he didn't like what I had to say. The Manny Ramirez contract is the only comparable we have to Mookie at the moment, because Manny Ramirez was one of the only contracts that the Sox held while his contract was one of the most expensive in MLB at the time. Add- In fact, the fact that Manny Ramirez is the only point of reference is also a indicator of what the Sox won't do here when it comes to Mookie (offer a market level deal). What about a $200+ million for Price? And... I guess it is partly relative. I mean, you can say they gave few “Manny” contracts, but by that standard, you can say many teams have never done it. The question is more about top dollar. Sox spent huge on Crawford. Gonzales. Fat Panda. Huge like Manny? No. But huge for those positions. Consider the pay they gave Porcello, at best a #3 starter. The kind of money half the league simply wouldn’t do. How many mega contracts are there? It's all relative. Price was the highest paid pitcher in the league, but there was already contracts worth way more prior. Joey Votto. Albert Pujols. Robinson Cano. ARod (twice). Miguel Cabrera. It wasn't soon thereafter where contracts really spiked, too. Like Trout, Harper, etc. In essence, when you line up the Price contract, it wasn't even in the top 5 of contracts out there at the time. Manny Ramirez's contract at the time was, and we all don't need to review that subject again. Henry has no problem probably dumping 200+ million on a star player. 300+ million? I think he's tapping out, due to his behavior in the past on mega contracts.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,398
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Aug 12, 2019 17:55:25 GMT -5
What about a $200+ million for Price? And... I guess it is partly relative. I mean, you can say they gave few “Manny” contracts, but by that standard, you can say many teams have never done it. The question is more about top dollar. Sox spent huge on Crawford. Gonzales. Fat Panda. Huge like Manny? No. But huge for those positions. Consider the pay they gave Porcello, at best a #3 starter. The kind of money half the league simply wouldn’t do. How many mega contracts are there? It's all relative. Price was the highest paid pitcher in the league, but there was already contracts worth way more prior. Joey Votto. Albert Pujols. Robinson Cano. ARod (twice). Miguel Cabrera. It wasn't soon thereafter where contracts really spiked, too. Like Trout, Harper, etc. In essence, when you line up the Price contract, it wasn't even in the top 5 of contracts out there at the time. Manny Ramirez's contract was, and we all don't need to review that subject again. Henry has no problem probably dumping 200 million on a star player. 300 million? I think he's tapping out, due to his behavior in the past on mega contracts. In that case, I don’t see your point. The Sox have, on a number of occasions, given huge contracts to FAs. You point to the absolute whoppers (though Cano’s $240/10 is smaller by year than Price’s, so your selection is odd), to say what? The Sox are cheap? Too cheap to pony up for Mookie? Well, Trout, Votto, ARod, and Cabrera all got extended by their own teams, so it is impossible to say the Sox wouldn’t match. I think history shows the Pujols and Cano deals were disasters. So.... what? Edit: in fact, I believe the 3 biggest free agent (not extension) contracts ever are Cano, Pujols, and Harper. Two or three of those suck as deals. Harper is the only $300-Million free agent. So by that reckoning, only the Phillies are willing to spend $300-milllion on a free agent. Edit 2: I am for spending all they need to on Mookie, but your list actually might point to the wisdom of NOT paying these contracts. Trout and Pujols — how gave Angels done with them? The Reds with Votto? Mariners with Cano? Look how crippled the Nats are by losing Harper. How are the Tigers liking that Cabrera deal? Maybe the Sox, I don’t know, don’t just throw money away?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 12, 2019 18:27:03 GMT -5
It's all relative. Price was the highest paid pitcher in the league, but there was already contracts worth way more prior. Joey Votto. Albert Pujols. Robinson Cano. ARod (twice). Miguel Cabrera. It wasn't soon thereafter where contracts really spiked, too. Like Trout, Harper, etc. In essence, when you line up the Price contract, it wasn't even in the top 5 of contracts out there at the time. Manny Ramirez's contract was, and we all don't need to review that subject again. Henry has no problem probably dumping 200 million on a star player. 300 million? I think he's tapping out, due to his behavior in the past on mega contracts. In that case, I don’t see your point. The Sox have, on a number of occasions, given huge contracts to FAs. You point to the absolute whoppers (though Cano’s $240/10 is smaller by year than Price’s, so your selection is odd), to say what? The Sox are cheap? Too cheap to pony up for Mookie? Well, Trout, Votto, ARod, and Cabrera all got extended by their own teams, so it is impossible to say the Sox wouldn’t match. I think history shows the Pujols and Cano deals were disasters. So.... what? This Mookie contract is going to be a whopper. That's really the whole point in all of this. Mookie has said (and I'm paraphrasing) that he sees himself at a certain value and he expects it to come when he hits free agency. Translation- He sees himself at a certain number to get a deal done. Mookie knows the number. John Henry probably knows the number. 100 million didn't work. 200 million didn't work. You're looking at 300+ million to get it done. I think the total years is irrelevant in this case. Although, I don't see Henry being comfortable going more than 10 years either. The most years I believe he has ever offered to a player was the 9 year 170+ million dollar rumored offer for Texeira a decade ago. I think it's easy to see where this is headed. Now with the rumors that Jon Morosi popped up recently with "rival GMs expect that the Sox are going to listen to offers for Mookie Betts." It's what might be the best trade offer for Mookie at this point, especially if Henry is unwilling to go to that 300+ million dollar offer.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,398
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Aug 12, 2019 18:35:15 GMT -5
In that case, I don’t see your point. The Sox have, on a number of occasions, given huge contracts to FAs. You point to the absolute whoppers (though Cano’s $240/10 is smaller by year than Price’s, so your selection is odd), to say what? The Sox are cheap? Too cheap to pony up for Mookie? Well, Trout, Votto, ARod, and Cabrera all got extended by their own teams, so it is impossible to say the Sox wouldn’t match. I think history shows the Pujols and Cano deals were disasters. So.... what? This Mookie contract is going to be a whopper. That's really the whole point in all of this. Mookie has said (and I'm paraphrasing) that he sees himself at a certain value and he expects it to come when he hits free agency. Translation- He sees himself at a certain number to get a deal done. Mookie knows the number. John Henry probably knows the number. 100 million didn't work. 200 million didn't work. You're looking at 300+ million to get it done. I think the total years is irrelevant in this case. Although, I don't see Henry being comfortable going more than 10 years either. The most years I believe he has ever offered to a player was the 9 year 170+ million dollar rumored offer for Texeira a decade ago. I think it's easy to see where this is headed. Now with the rumors that Jon Morosi popped up recently with "rival GMs expect that the Sox are going to listen to offers for Mookie Betts." It's what might be the trade offer for Mookie at this point, especially if Henry is unwilling to go to that 300+ million dollar offer. But you suggest some certainty that a) the Sox won’t pay; and b) this is a product of cheapness. I don’t see the evidence. They have been demonstrably big spenders on free agents, and in high profile cases where they were not, that choice appears to have been wise. Again, I’m in favor of a whopper for Mookie, but if he does end up with some 12-year, $400 million contract elsewhere, I’d hardly call it cheap not to match. A team has to decide how that impacts the rest of the roster. Again, let’s see how many rings Trout gets. I suspect it’ll be zero.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Aug 12, 2019 20:40:13 GMT -5
This thread is a tire fire.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 12, 2019 21:07:09 GMT -5
This thread is a tire fire. Agreed. Tire fire is a better analogy than dumpster fire, because a tire is circular. It can never, ever, ever, ever end, an infinite loop on the same path, never getting closer to, or further from, its center. On fire. Forever.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 13, 2019 9:25:01 GMT -5
This from the guy that loves throwing around "rooting for the Billionaires". I'll give it to the owners they have done a great PR campaign on the fans. The penalty which I certainly care about is less or about equal to signing a qualified free agent and a ton less than it used to be. It's a rather small penalty and certainly not the reason teams aren't spending. It was designed as a rather small penalty so all the big market teams would have no issue blowing by the upper tax line. If they didn't want that, it would be losing a first round pick, not it moves back ten spots. Like look at the draft cap, no one wants you to blow past that, hence you lose two first round picks. Now that is a penalty that can kill a team long-term if you mess up those picks. I'm the one accused of rooting for billionaires because I understand that all owners do have budgets. What world do you live in where businesses don't have budgets? I live in the world when revenues and profits go up by a ton, so do budgets. They don't go down, so billionaires can make more and the workers get less. By accepting the luxury tax line as something other than what it is, a cost of doing business. You're rooting for the Billionaires to make more and the players less. It's likely that is why we'll have a strike in Baseball.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 13, 2019 9:37:05 GMT -5
I think most people easily give him Harper money, yet why would he take that? You are likely much closer to Trout money and that's the issue. Espically if he's dead set on becoming a free agent and having every team be able to drive up his price. The question is what do you do if he turns down more than Harper got and won't sign an extension? At that point are you ready to pay whatever the market price is? I’m ready to pay whatever the market price is if it doesn’t demolish the budget. I expect it to be more Harper than Trout, but if I’m wrong, so be it. Here is the thing: why should I expect to pay below market price? It is hypocrisy of fans to expect of Mookie what we would not do in our own professional lives. And if he takes market price, why shouldn’t it be from the Sox? They can afford that. Now, if the numbers don’t add up after positive moves (say, extensions for Devers, Benny, and maybe some great FA signing), well, I suppose these things happen. It is not my preference, but I won’t call for DD’s drawing and quartering if his plan is not my plan... as long as there is a plan. Why do you think more Harper than Trout? Betts is much closer to Trout based on bwar than Harper. Heck if Betts has a normal season next year, he'll hit free agency with almost double the career bwar that Harper had. Market price right now and market price next year aren't the same thing and it's not crazy for Betts to maybe take a slight discount to stay with the Red Sox if he truly wants to be here.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 13, 2019 9:44:50 GMT -5
Harper is such an anomaly, though. He had the one season where he put everything together, the tools are there obviously, he's had great peripheral numbers... but there's often been something holding him back from taking that step forward. And maybe he never will, but I think we all recognize that he didn't get that contract based on his career WAR or whatever. Players don't get paid in free agency for past performance, they get paid for perceptions of their future value. Trout is in a category all by himself there.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 13, 2019 9:47:46 GMT -5
I’m ready to pay whatever the market price is if it doesn’t demolish the budget. I expect it to be more Harper than Trout, but if I’m wrong, so be it. Here is the thing: why should I expect to pay below market price? It is hypocrisy of fans to expect of Mookie what we would not do in our own professional lives. And if he takes market price, why shouldn’t it be from the Sox? They can afford that. Now, if the numbers don’t add up after positive moves (say, extensions for Devers, Benny, and maybe some great FA signing), well, I suppose these things happen. It is not my preference, but I won’t call for DD’s drawing and quartering if his plan is not my plan... as long as there is a plan. Why do you think more Harper than Trout? Betts is much closer to Trout based on bwar than Harper. Heck if Betts has a normal season next year, he'll hit free agency with almost double the career bwar that Harper had. Market price right now and market price next year aren't the same thing and it's not crazy for Betts to maybe take a slight discount to stay with the Red Sox if he truly wants to be here. That's the thing. If the Sox offered 11 years $363 million this offseason there's no guarantee that Betts would even take that. I think he's made his mind up - that he's going to wait until 2020 and see what happens. I mean the Sox could make that offer and he might still turn it down, and then accept that offer if it's made again at the end of 2020 if it's around (in the Red Sox' case) or is the highest offer. I think he's determined to wait until the end of 2020. But then again we don't know for sure because we don't know that the Sox have even made an offer that's anywhere near what he can expect come free agency. The 8 year $200 million offer they originally made was nowhere near what he'll ultimately get. He gambled on himself that he was capable of being worth a lot more on the open market than that and he assessed it correctly. I think the Red Sox will see that he's not signing this offseason no matter what - in my opinion - and yeah, that could lead to a huge trade. I hope that's not the case. I hope the Sox and Mookie leave this upcoming offseason with an understanding that if he plays like a cross between this year and 2018 in 2020, that the Sox and he have the parameters of what it takes to sign him back after 2020 - and no, I don't see that happening if the Sox deal him away. Nor do I want to see the Red Sox risk the chance of winning in 2020 if they get Sale straightened out, replace Porcello and Cashner and finally replace Kimbrel.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 13, 2019 9:49:31 GMT -5
I'm the one accused of rooting for billionaires because I understand that all owners do have budgets. What world do you live in where businesses don't have budgets? I live in the world when revenues and profits go up by a ton, so do budgets. They don't go down, so billionaires can make more and the workers get less. By accepting the luxury tax line as something other than what it is, a cost of doing business. You're rooting for the Billionaires to make more and the players less. It's likely that is why we'll have a strike in Baseball. I'm not rooting for billionaires. I'm rooting for the Red Sox. I mean would you applaud the Red Sox signing Mookie for 35 years and 18 billion dollars? If not, you're rooting for billionaires.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 13, 2019 10:04:17 GMT -5
I live in the world when revenues and profits go up by a ton, so do budgets. They don't go down, so billionaires can make more and the workers get less. By accepting the luxury tax line as something other than what it is, a cost of doing business. You're rooting for the Billionaires to make more and the players less. It's likely that is why we'll have a strike in Baseball. I'm not rooting for billionaires. I'm rooting for the Red Sox. I mean would you applaud the Red Sox signing Mookie for 35 years and 18 billion dollars? If not, you're rooting for billionaires. I think the larger discussion is that the owners have, through the CBA, worked the fans into this belief that their hands are tied when it comes to paying the players. People only want the Red Sox to not sign Mookie Betts to an $18 quadrillion contract insofar as it hurts their ability to acquire other players. But... suppose that it didn't? Suppose the salary structure in baseball reflected the reality that Mookie Betts getting more money just means that John Henry got to keep a little bit less money for selling tickets and TV commercials for people tuning in to watch Mookie Betts. At its core, there are multiple discussions here that are overlapping. 1. Is John Henry willing to sign top-level, expensive free agents? Demonstrably, yes. There's only one person who doesn't think this, so I think we should move on from it. 2. Could John Henry and the rest of the Red Sox ownership group afford to pay Mookie Betts $400 million over 12 years or something like that? Yes, of course they could. 3. Is it sensible, given the artificial barriers constructed, for the Red Sox to break through the barriers to sign their best player in 70 years? Possibly. To me, the difference between Mookie Betts and what they would do with that money in lieu of signing Betts is worth more than the difference between Matt Wallner and Cameron Cannon every year, so I'd say yes. However, it's not unreasonable to think that, over time, those differences add up and put the Red Sox at a disadvantage. What's so frustrating is that so much of the conversation takes for granted those artificial barriers as being something fans should be okay with. And what is also frustrating is that so much of the pushback to that, in this thread, is reductionist whining that free agents sometimes choosing to sign with other teams being a sign that John Henry is cheap. John Henry not signing Mark Teixiera isn't a sign he's not willing to sign Mookie Betts, but it's also not a reason to let him off the hook for operating within a constructed economic system that he and the owners fashioned in order to claim they can't afford to give Mookie Betts $400 million.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,398
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Aug 13, 2019 10:10:05 GMT -5
I’m ready to pay whatever the market price is if it doesn’t demolish the budget. I expect it to be more Harper than Trout, but if I’m wrong, so be it. Here is the thing: why should I expect to pay below market price? It is hypocrisy of fans to expect of Mookie what we would not do in our own professional lives. And if he takes market price, why shouldn’t it be from the Sox? They can afford that. Now, if the numbers don’t add up after positive moves (say, extensions for Devers, Benny, and maybe some great FA signing), well, I suppose these things happen. It is not my preference, but I won’t call for DD’s drawing and quartering if his plan is not my plan... as long as there is a plan. Why do you think more Harper than Trout? Betts is much closer to Trout based on bwar than Harper. Heck if Betts has a normal season next year, he'll hit free agency with almost double the career bwar that Harper had. Market price right now and market price next year aren't the same thing and it's not crazy for Betts to maybe take a slight discount to stay with the Red Sox if he truly wants to be here. I son’t think they get paid by bWAR. I think more Harper because Trout is the best and puts a cap on contracts. Further, I think teams are gun shy about mega contracts. They have tended to be anchors, as I wrote above. How many teams can go higher than ~$300 million? Who is the $400 million GM? I don’t see the Yankees with Stanton’s contract and Judge to pay. Obviously not the Phillies. Not the Angels. Mariners? Doubt it. Cubs? Would be surprised. Dodgers? Maybe? I still imagine something in the range of 10-year -$330 million. I’d be less surprised by the under than the over. By far.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,398
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Aug 13, 2019 10:52:02 GMT -5
I'm not rooting for billionaires. I'm rooting for the Red Sox. I mean would you applaud the Red Sox signing Mookie for 35 years and 18 billion dollars? If not, you're rooting for billionaires. I think the larger discussion is that the owners have, through the CBA, worked the fans into this belief that their hands are tied when it comes to paying the players. People only want the Red Sox to not sign Mookie Betts to an $18 quadrillion contract insofar as it hurts their ability to acquire other players. But... suppose that it didn't? Suppose the salary structure in baseball reflected the reality that Mookie Betts getting more money just means that John Henry got to keep a little bit less money for selling tickets and TV commercials for people tuning in to watch Mookie Betts. At its core, there are multiple discussions here that are overlapping. 1. Is John Henry willing to sign top-level, expensive free agents? Demonstrably, yes. There's only one person who doesn't think this, so I think we should move on from it. 2. Could John Henry and the rest of the Red Sox ownership group afford to pay Mookie Betts $400 million over 12 years or something like that? Yes, of course they could. 3. Is it sensible, given the artificial barriers constructed, for the Red Sox to break through the barriers to sign their best player in 70 years? Possibly. To me, the difference between Mookie Betts and what they would do with that money in lieu of signing Betts is worth more than the difference between Matt Wallner and Cameron Cannon every year, so I'd say yes. However, it's not unreasonable to think that, over time, those differences add up and put the Red Sox at a disadvantage. What's so frustrating is that so much of the conversation takes for granted those artificial barriers as being something fans should be okay with. And what is also frustrating is that so much of the pushback to that, in this thread, is reductionist whining that free agents sometimes choosing to sign with other teams being a sign that John Henry is cheap. John Henry not signing Mark Teixiera isn't a sign he's not willing to sign Mookie Betts, but it's also not a reason to let him off the hook for operating within a constructed economic system that he and the owners constructed in order to claim they can't afford to give Mookie Betts $400 million. By artificial barriers, do you mean the luxury tax? I don’t mind it. I think it actually helps with competition a bit. I guess a team like the Sox are hurt by it (without it, they’d likely gave kept Kimbrel). But that is probably good. Artificial barriers are called rules, which are always arbitrary. Further... I think the owners are not going to take a pay cut to keep up with exploding contracts even if there is no tax. They will pass the cost along in many forms to fans. If the luxury tax deflates expense to fans at even part of the rate it dies salaries, it is a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 13, 2019 10:55:29 GMT -5
I think the larger discussion is that the owners have, through the CBA, worked the fans into this belief that their hands are tied when it comes to paying the players. People only want the Red Sox to not sign Mookie Betts to an $18 quadrillion contract insofar as it hurts their ability to acquire other players. But... suppose that it didn't? Suppose the salary structure in baseball reflected the reality that Mookie Betts getting more money just means that John Henry got to keep a little bit less money for selling tickets and TV commercials for people tuning in to watch Mookie Betts. At its core, there are multiple discussions here that are overlapping. 1. Is John Henry willing to sign top-level, expensive free agents? Demonstrably, yes. There's only one person who doesn't think this, so I think we should move on from it. 2. Could John Henry and the rest of the Red Sox ownership group afford to pay Mookie Betts $400 million over 12 years or something like that? Yes, of course they could. 3. Is it sensible, given the artificial barriers constructed, for the Red Sox to break through the barriers to sign their best player in 70 years? Possibly. To me, the difference between Mookie Betts and what they would do with that money in lieu of signing Betts is worth more than the difference between Matt Wallner and Cameron Cannon every year, so I'd say yes. However, it's not unreasonable to think that, over time, those differences add up and put the Red Sox at a disadvantage. What's so frustrating is that so much of the conversation takes for granted those artificial barriers as being something fans should be okay with. And what is also frustrating is that so much of the pushback to that, in this thread, is reductionist whining that free agents sometimes choosing to sign with other teams being a sign that John Henry is cheap. John Henry not signing Mark Teixiera isn't a sign he's not willing to sign Mookie Betts, but it's also not a reason to let him off the hook for operating within a constructed economic system that he and the owners constructed in order to claim they can't afford to give Mookie Betts $400 million. By artificial barriers, do you mean the luxury tax? I don’t mind it. I think it actually helps with competition a bit. I guess a team like the Sox are hurt by it (without it, they’d likely gave kept Kimbrel). But that is probably good. Artificial barriers are called rules, which are always arbitrary. And rules that keep money from flowing from owner to labor are bad. It doesn't
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 13, 2019 11:19:13 GMT -5
I'm not rooting for billionaires. I'm rooting for the Red Sox. I mean would you applaud the Red Sox signing Mookie for 35 years and 18 billion dollars? If not, you're rooting for billionaires. I think the larger discussion is that the owners have, through the CBA, worked the fans into this belief that their hands are tied when it comes to paying the players. People only want the Red Sox to not sign Mookie Betts to an $18 quadrillion contract insofar as it hurts their ability to acquire other players. But... suppose that it didn't? Suppose the salary structure in baseball reflected the reality that Mookie Betts getting more money just means that John Henry got to keep a little bit less money for selling tickets and TV commercials for people tuning in to watch Mookie Betts. At its core, there are multiple discussions here that are overlapping. 1. Is John Henry willing to sign top-level, expensive free agents? Demonstrably, yes. There's only one person who doesn't think this, so I think we should move on from it. 2. Could John Henry and the rest of the Red Sox ownership group afford to pay Mookie Betts $400 million over 12 years or something like that? Yes, of course they could. 3. Is it sensible, given the artificial barriers constructed, for the Red Sox to break through the barriers to sign their best player in 70 years? Possibly. To me, the difference between Mookie Betts and what they would do with that money in lieu of signing Betts is worth more than the difference between Matt Wallner and Cameron Cannon every year, so I'd say yes. However, it's not unreasonable to think that, over time, those differences add up and put the Red Sox at a disadvantage. What's so frustrating is that so much of the conversation takes for granted those artificial barriers as being something fans should be okay with. And what is also frustrating is that so much of the pushback to that, in this thread, is reductionist whining that free agents sometimes choosing to sign with other teams being a sign that John Henry is cheap. John Henry not signing Mark Teixiera isn't a sign he's not willing to sign Mookie Betts, but it's also not a reason to let him off the hook for operating within a constructed economic system that he and the owners fashioned in order to claim they can't afford to give Mookie Betts $400 million. I'm not ok with the CBA. But that is a separate issue from what I want the Red Sox to do within the current CBA and what they should do with the constraints they have put on their budget, for whatever reasons they may be. I mean I'm currently laid off for the 5th time in my life so stockholders can make a fraction of a penny more on their share prices, so I really do not route for billionaires. I mean the guy currently accusing me of rooting for billionaires is also the guy who has endlessly argued with me over minor league pay and why it should remain as low as it is! Who's on who's side?! The only time to accuse someone of rooting for billionaires is when they are discussing the CBA and defending the owners instead of the players, not when they're pleased that the team signed a player for a reasonable or below market contract. Or even when they hope for that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 13, 2019 11:23:15 GMT -5
Harper is such an anomaly, though. He had the one season where he put everything together, the tools are there obviously, he's had great peripheral numbers... but there's often been something holding him back from taking that step forward. And maybe he never will, but I think we all recognize that he didn't get that contract based on his career WAR or whatever. Players don't get paid in free agency for past performance, they get paid for perceptions of their future value. Trout is in a category all by himself there. He is and you can certainly make the case that was a horrible deal the minute it was signed. Yet if your predicting future value how in the world doesn't Betts grade out way higher? He has had a better season by bwar and outside of one season by Harper, he's been better every other year. You know Betts agent was jumping for Joy when Harper signed that deal and also Trout's. Looking at the players and past contracts, Betts has to be closer to Trout than Harper. Espically if he actually hits the open market after having a big year.
|
|
|