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 manfred on Aug 13, 2019 11:25:14 GMT -5
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 I agree that money should flow to labor, but I am also against a league that has a bunch of small market teams play the roles of Washington Generals or development squads for bigger teams. There has to be a way to balance that.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 13, 2019 11:30:28 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 don't really judge it by who they sign, but how much they spend. Like I have no issue not signing Betts if it takes 13 years, that length is crazy. Yet don't give me we can't sign him because we don't have the money in the budget because we don't want to have our draft pick moved back ten spots. That is crazy, we have plenty of money in the budget and that penalty is very small.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 13, 2019 11:31:44 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 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. But let’s not kid ourselves: having caps on contracts that are 1/3 of a billion dollars is hardly kicking the little guy. I mean, when we are asking if a guy should get $200, $300, or $400 million, we are not exactly storming the Winter Palace. Mike Trout, with good investments, will be pushing billionaire by the time he dies. Indeed, again, those max contracts might actually hurt mid-range players who get squeezed out (which happens a good deal in the NBA). There is something to be said for the notion that mega contracts are bad for everyone but the guy who gets it. If we really want to discuss labor, I’d gladly trade a ceiling on max contracts for a higher minimum and higher wages in the minors.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 13, 2019 11:35:14 GMT -5
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. The Padres gave out a 300 million dollar contract. Teams will pay for super elite talent and if Betts takes under 330 million over 10 years he's done the Red Sox a big favor.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 13, 2019 11:37:36 GMT -5
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. The Padres gave out a 300 million dollar contract. Teams will pay for super elite talent and if Betts takes under 330 million over 10 years he's done the Red Sox a big favor. Good. The Padres are another team out of the bidding.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 13, 2019 11:46:56 GMT -5
And rules that keep money from flowing from owner to labor are bad. It doesn't I agree that money should flow to labor, but I am also against a league that has a bunch of small market teams play the roles of Washington Generals or development squads for bigger teams. There has to be a way to balance that. That's what this CBA was supposed to fix. Teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, etc going over the highest tax line paying big luxury tax bills would be a ton more money flowing to the lesser revenue teams. Instead the Yankees and Dodgers cut payroll by a ton, and the Red Sox along with other high revenue teams act like the top tax line is almost a hard cap. You basically have the high revenue teams flipping the bird to the lower revenue teams, while thanking them for giving them an excuse to increase profits. A system meant to greatly increase luxury tax payments, has greatly decreased them as revenues have gone way up. To say it's been a disaster is a huge understatement. Like I've been saying for years, only way to truly fix Baseball is to lump in all TV money like other major sports do and spread it out equally.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 13, 2019 12:14:20 GMT -5
I agree that money should flow to labor, but I am also against a league that has a bunch of small market teams play the roles of Washington Generals or development squads for bigger teams. There has to be a way to balance that. That's what this CBA was supposed to fix. Teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, etc going over the highest tax line paying big luxury tax bills would be a ton more money flowing to the lesser revenue teams. Instead the Yankees and Dodgers cut payroll by a ton, and the Red Sox along with other high revenue teams act like the top tax line is almost a hard cap. You basically have the high revenue teams flipping the bird to the lower revenue teams, while thanking them for giving them an excuse to increase profits. A system meant to greatly increase luxury tax payments, has greatly decreased them as revenues have gone way up. To say it's been a disaster is a huge understatement. Like I've been saying for years, only way to truly fix Baseball is to lump in all TV money like other major sports do and spread it out equally. But why is it bad that the top teams have capped spending? I mean, would baseball be better if the Yankees had signed Harper and Machado last year but the owner of the Pirates got another $10 million? It seems like the salary cap in football has enabled greater parity. I mean, a team like the Green Bay Packers is hard to imagine in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 13, 2019 12:45:33 GMT -5
NFL's schedule makes it a lot easier to negotiate league wide deals. With the NBA, any sport that is being paid by ESPN is going to find it a lot harder to get that money forever, since the cable fees for ESPN are already astronomical and doesn't have much room for expansion. ESPN is the #1 reason why people are getting rid of cable. It's only the 19th most popular channel according to a Tivo study and by far the most expensive. money.com/money/4700663/cable-prices-most-popular-tv-channels-espn-abc-discovery-hbo/The point of this? Huge sports fans are not going to be forever subsidized by the people who don't want ESPN. The cable model of absolute monopoly is not going to last at all. As of now, if you pay for anything television related (cable or streaming service like Youtube TV, etc.), you're paying a sh*tload for ESPN even if you never turn it on. I don't watch it at all unless I'm forced to. It's a matter of when, not if, that ESPN is going to be separate, and if only the people who wanted it had to pay for it, the price would likely be $100 a month because of how much money they have promised the NBA and other entities. And when they can't get anyone to pay that, the leagues are going to have to take far less money and see their cable money tree wither and die.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 13, 2019 13:13:19 GMT -5
People buying cable packages to watch live sports are what is sustaining cable. Thinking that ESPN is only above water because content providers are bundling it to people who just want to watch TLC to subsidize it gets it exactly backwards. That's why ESPN gets those exorbitant fees.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan511 on Aug 13, 2019 13:15:48 GMT -5
Pay Mookie whatever he wants.
Get rid of JBJ, Porcello, and Moreland
Try to trade Eovaldi terrible contract
Try to trade Price while he still has an arm left
|
|
|
Post by coachmac on Aug 13, 2019 13:16:18 GMT -5
If I rember correctly baseball players get significantly less as a percentage of total revenues than players in the NFL or NBA. The MLBPA clearly missed the mark when it agreed to nominal increases in the competitive balance tax levels. Clearly the growth ofrevenues have outpaced the rise of the tax levels.
If I were Mookie I wouldnt sign a long-term deal until the CBA is extended. In addition to to tax levels a minimum spending level needs to be established. As Manfred mentioned something also needs to be done for the rank and file. Raising minimumd may address that
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 13, 2019 13:50:09 GMT -5
People buying cable packages to watch live sports are what is sustaining cable. Thinking that ESPN is only above water because content providers are bundling it to people who just want to watch TLC to subsidize it gets it exactly backwards. That's why ESPN gets those exorbitant fees. Except people who don't care about sports are leaving cable. It's a dying industry. Young people don't even watch tv anymore.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 13, 2019 14:10:49 GMT -5
People buying cable packages to watch live sports are what is sustaining cable. Thinking that ESPN is only above water because content providers are bundling it to people who just want to watch TLC to subsidize it gets it exactly backwards. That's why ESPN gets those exorbitant fees. Except people who don't care about sports are leaving cable. It's a dying industry. Young people don't even watch tv anymore. Yet ESPN is still getting those fees, and giving out contracts reflective of that. You think that's because Disney is stupid with their money? *Cable* is dying but *watching live sports* is not.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 13, 2019 14:26:49 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. 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. 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. You're in for a treat if you think the Sox are willing to do that. There's a difference between top level and the mega contracts of MLB. You can pay for top level contracts and still not have even a top 5 contract in MLB today. That's what Henry usually goes for. Texeira chose to go to Yankees, but it was reported that the Sox got outbid by the Yankees by 20 million at that time too, making the decision even easier. The Sox draw a line, unless they are desperate.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 13, 2019 14:31:16 GMT -5
Do you think saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over helps to convince them or just annoys them?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Aug 13, 2019 14:42:59 GMT -5
Do you think saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over helps to convince them or just annoys them? I didn't repeat exactly. You phrased "top end contacts" with the mega deals. They shouldn't be. They're two separate things. I gave everyone a reason why Texeira chose New York, more than the accepted fact that "he just wanted to play there." No the Sox could have kept bidding and overpaid and could have gotten him. They didn't. Will the Sox keep upping the offer to Betts or will they draw the line? You tell me.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 13, 2019 15:10:43 GMT -5
That's what this CBA was supposed to fix. Teams like the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, etc going over the highest tax line paying big luxury tax bills would be a ton more money flowing to the lesser revenue teams. Instead the Yankees and Dodgers cut payroll by a ton, and the Red Sox along with other high revenue teams act like the top tax line is almost a hard cap. You basically have the high revenue teams flipping the bird to the lower revenue teams, while thanking them for giving them an excuse to increase profits. A system meant to greatly increase luxury tax payments, has greatly decreased them as revenues have gone way up. To say it's been a disaster is a huge understatement. Like I've been saying for years, only way to truly fix Baseball is to lump in all TV money like other major sports do and spread it out equally. But why is it bad that the top teams have capped spending? I mean, would baseball be better if the Yankees had signed Harper and Machado last year but the owner of the Pirates got another $10 million? It seems like the salary cap in football has enabled greater parity. I mean, a team like the Green Bay Packers is hard to imagine in baseball. Because it drags down the percentage of revenue the players get. The salary caps in other sports are set so the players get there set amount of revenue. Baseball doesn't have that, if the top teams stop spending what they should, the players get less and owners just pocket more money. I don't care who teams sign, I just don't look at things that way. Yet it's not good for Baseball to have it's high revenue teams not spending hundreds of millions per year that they should be spending. You need those teams in the market regardless of how they spend the money, just as long as they are spending it. If not you have a broken system. You can't make up the amount of money those teams aren't spending, it's going to be the main cause of a strike. They control so much money that they litterally can alter the free agent market. Giving the lower revenue teams ten million is a huge amount of money to them. Like I get it, you want parity and think the top teams spending less gives you that or makes things better. Maybe it does slightly, but it also breaks the economic system in Baseball. So until you find a way to transfer revenues the top teams have to spend. The Yankees are going to have revenues of what like 800 million this year and are spending like 200 million on payroll. That's 25%, 200 million the players lose and the Yankees owners pocket in just one year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 13, 2019 15:48:41 GMT -5
Except people who don't care about sports are leaving cable. It's a dying industry. Young people don't even watch tv anymore. Yet ESPN is still getting those fees, and giving out contracts reflective of that. You think that's because Disney is stupid with their money? *Cable* is dying but *watching live sports* is not. Their fees cannot go up 15% per year forever. The money is going to stop exponentially increasing and then the shareholders will demand them to change. They're laying off tons of people already. When the monopoly breaks, they'll just be another Ma Bell. Professional sports will pay the price when it happens.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Aug 13, 2019 15:53:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 13, 2019 15:57:00 GMT -5
Interesting. Can you please also summarize the comparison that Gammons is making with Benintendi to Yaz and Lynn?
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 13, 2019 16:08:06 GMT -5
But why is it bad that the top teams have capped spending? I mean, would baseball be better if the Yankees had signed Harper and Machado last year but the owner of the Pirates got another $10 million? It seems like the salary cap in football has enabled greater parity. I mean, a team like the Green Bay Packers is hard to imagine in baseball. Because it drags down the percentage of revenue the players get. The salary caps in other sports are set so the players get there set amount of revenue. Baseball doesn't have that, if the top teams stop spending what they should, the players get less and owners just pocket more money. I don't care who teams sign, I just don't look at things that way. Yet it's not good for Baseball to have it's high revenue teams not spending hundreds of millions per year that they should be spending. You need those teams in the market regardless of how they spend the money, just as long as they are spending it. If not you have a broken system. You can't make up the amount of money those teams aren't spending, it's going to be the main cause of a strike. They control so much money that they litterally can alter the free agent market. Giving the lower revenue teams ten million is a huge amount of money to them. Like I get it, you want parity and think the top teams spending less gives you that or makes things better. Maybe it does slightly, but it also breaks the economic system in Baseball. So until you find a way to transfer revenues the top teams have to spend. The Yankees are going to have revenues of what like 800 million this year and are spending like 200 million on payroll. That's 25%, 200 million the players lose and the Yankees owners pocket in just one year. But $10 million is chump change in your market... especially when teams like the Marlins appear to pocket it. I guess my point is that it is not just the big teams sitting on cash. But I DO have a huge problem with a handful of teams signing all the best players. The NBA, with these concentrated super teams, is a bore. The regular season becomes meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by coachmac on Aug 13, 2019 16:39:39 GMT -5
Interesting. Can you please also summarize the comparison that Gammons is making with Benintendi to Yaz and Lynn? The comparison was that Benitendi was positioned to become this generation's sweet-swinging lefthander like Yaz and Lynn. After mentioning their similar statures,he then pointed out that both Yaz and Lynn struggled in their 25 year old seasons before breaking out.
|
|
|
Post by jbsox on Aug 13, 2019 16:40:10 GMT -5
Pay Mookie whatever he wants. Get rid of JBJ, Porcello, and Moreland Try to trade Eovaldi terrible contract Try to trade Price while he still has an arm left I’m for part of this. I think Eovaldi probably has negative value on the market, so I’d rather just hope he bounces back next season. What I’m really open for is trading Price even if we have to eat a portion of his contract say 10 to 15 mil a year. Aim for a return of a cost controlled starting/bulk pitcher, and cost controlled reliever to add to our mix. Maybe have Sale, Erod, and Eovaldi as traditional starters, and 2 openers (maybe Hernandez) with bulk pitchers (maybe Houck and whatever we get back from Price.) it works for Tampa and why not take chances with what happened to our starters this year. I also think Price will have good positive trade value if the receiving team is only paying 15 to 20 mil a year of the 3 years left of his contract, while at the same time that money gives us more flexibility to retain Mookie, and for other moves (even JBJ for those fans out there. Ha) Price may be very good his remaining 3 years, but I’m also worried he’ll go downhill. I’d rather sell while he still has value, and give us more flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 13, 2019 16:46:00 GMT -5
Pay Mookie whatever he wants. Get rid of JBJ, Porcello, and Moreland Try to trade Eovaldi terrible contract Try to trade Price while he still has an arm left I’m for part of this. I think Eovaldi probably has negative value on the market, so I’d rather just hope he bounces back next season. What I’m really open for is trading Price even if we have to eat a portion of his contract say 10 to 15 mil a year. Aim for a return of a cost controlled starting/bulk pitcher, and cost controlled reliever to add to our mix. Maybe have Sale, Erod, and Eovaldi as traditional starters, and 2 openers (maybe Hernandez) with bulk pitchers (maybe Houck and whatever we get back from Price.) it works for Tampa and why not take chances with what happened to our starters this year. I also think Price will have good positive trade value if the receiving team is only paying 15 to 20 mil a year of the 3 years left of his contract, while at the same time that money gives us more flexibility to retain Mookie, and for other moves (even JBJ for those fans out there. Ha) Price may be very good his remaining 3 years, but I’m also worried he’ll go downhill. I’d rather sell while he still has value, and give us more flexibility. I’d be curious how much salary they’d have to eat to trade Price. Certainly there is a point where that is desirable. But my concern is that with his age, cost, and recent performance, the Sox would eat a ton of salary and get a small return. That is not worth it. The other option is to try to package him with a more desirable commodity... Benny? Even Mookie? or to a lesser degree Casas?... and seek a real return.
|
|
|
Post by jbsox on Aug 13, 2019 17:09:10 GMT -5
I’m for part of this. I think Eovaldi probably has negative value on the market, so I’d rather just hope he bounces back next season. What I’m really open for is trading Price even if we have to eat a portion of his contract say 10 to 15 mil a year. Aim for a return of a cost controlled starting/bulk pitcher, and cost controlled reliever to add to our mix. Maybe have Sale, Erod, and Eovaldi as traditional starters, and 2 openers (maybe Hernandez) with bulk pitchers (maybe Houck and whatever we get back from Price.) it works for Tampa and why not take chances with what happened to our starters this year. I also think Price will have good positive trade value if the receiving team is only paying 15 to 20 mil a year of the 3 years left of his contract, while at the same time that money gives us more flexibility to retain Mookie, and for other moves (even JBJ for those fans out there. Ha) Price may be very good his remaining 3 years, but I’m also worried he’ll go downhill. I’d rather sell while he still has value, and give us more flexibility. I’d be curious how much salary they’d have to eat to trade Price. Certainly there is a point where that is desirable. But my concern is that with his age, cost, and recent performance, the Sox would eat a ton of salary and get a small return. That is not worth it. The other option is to try to package him with a more desirable commodity... Benny? Even Mookie? or to a lesser degree Casas?... and seek a real return. Just scanning the free agent class maybe 5 or so starters you would rather have if you bring the salary down. So they might be able to find a match. For me it doesn’t even have to be a high end return, maybe even a Beeks level pitcher along with a solid late inning reliever both cost controlled, and the indirect benefit of payroll flexibility would be a really nice help. No way would I include Casas, but I would include redundant prospects like Chatham to move the negotiations along.
|
|
|