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.
4/29-5/1 Red Sox vs Athletics Series Thread
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 2, 2019 13:09:11 GMT -5
Yes. The Sox would have been better off in 2005-2007. Better off in 2005, yes. Would have won them the division title although they still probably would have lost to the White Sox. It was their year that year. But in 2006 and 2007, no. Clay Buchholz's no-hitter in 2007 provided more for the Sox than anything Pedro would have done that year and Buchholz was the comp pick for letting Pedro walk. Pedro was never the same again after 2005. And I'm a huge Pedro fan. The Mets made Pedro pitch through a foot injury in the back half of his career and was never the same again. "Red flags were raised as he was shut down in late September, with the Mets out of the race. The focus on Pedro’s sore right toe was a dominant and surreal story throughout the offseason, and into the Spring. Questions of his health waned after Martinez got off to a 5-0 start in 2006. But he began to break down, first suffering a hip injury while slipping on the clubhouse steps. His performance steadily declined as his trips to the Disabled List increased (He had a total of two stays on the DL). He went 4-8 the rest of the year, and was seen crying in the dugout after a miserable outing in September. An MRI revealed he had been pitching with a torn rotator cuff and a torn calf. His season was done, and his career was threatened." www.metstoday.com/7248/11-12-offseason/pedro-martinez-and-the-mets/Pedro wasn't shut down though and he pitched through the toe injury he revealed later. This injury led him to compensate and lead to other injuries because his mechanics were out of whack. Things could have turned differently here, especially the way Boston protected him most of the time. His talent was undeniable.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 2, 2019 13:11:00 GMT -5
Nope. Not trolling. You're taking what I said completely out of context once again. You keep doing this. When they see a player, they should get said player. What is out of context here? How else is anybody supposed to interpret this sentence? I also said "the Sox should be at the top end of every bidding war and they should be a top 3 spending team every year." The free agents aren't always going to pick Boston because of preferences, but money isn't supposed to be why players turn to other teams. This was the case with Damon, Abreu, Pedro, Lester, Contreras. This is why the Yankees got Arod. It all came down to not spending more money at the time. It wasn't the case with Texeira because he wanted New York, but New York had the highest offer anyways.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 2, 2019 13:38:47 GMT -5
I can't believe you've all been trolled into arguing against "every free agent signed by the other 29 teams in the last 17 years is John Henry's personal failure." Hey remind me, have the economics of baseball changed at all in the last fifteen years? There's an argument to be had here, but I'm not sure Johnny Damon is really part of it...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 2, 2019 14:09:09 GMT -5
Letting Pedro walk was wise, for example. There are a lot of outrageously expensive free agents that I’d pass on. Not to say they aren't excellent players, but no matter how rich you are, there is only so much. I’d rather, for example, have the ability to sign two $150 million players than one Manny Machado. Neither signee will be as good as him, but I’d love to have both, say, a 6th place hitter and a very solid 3rd starter. Anyway, I think it is fair to criticize examples of the team-building philosophy, but I don’t know that the Sox are cheap. Pedro has already talked about the negotiation from the Red Sox after he retired. He said that it took until the final days that the Sox finally offered the third year in a contract. He said he already accepted the Mets 4 year contract. The Sox wanted Pedro back, they were just too cheap to come in with a 3rd year until it was too late. What you call cheap, I call smart. Pedro was pretty much done and they knew it.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,695
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 2, 2019 14:09:57 GMT -5
What is out of context here? How else is anybody supposed to interpret this sentence? I also said "the Sox should be at the top end of every bidding war and they should be a top 3 spending team every year." The free agents aren't always going to pick Boston because of preferences, but money isn't supposed to be why players turn to other teams. This was the case with Damon, Abreu, Pedro, Lester, Contreras. This is why the Yankees got Arod. It all came down to not spending more money at the time. It wasn't the case with Texeira because he wanted New York, but New York had the highest offer anyways. In Damon's case he didn't have Manny Ramirez in NY blocking his avenue for moving to LF once he could no longer hack CF. That's a significant difference. As it was, the Sox had Manny in LF from 2006 thru July 2008 and Jason Bay in LF from July 2008 thru 2009, the length of Damon's deal. The Sox had serious power in LF. Damon wouldn't have really fit in with the Sox until 2010. Ironically, the Red Sox DID try to trade for him - I believe it was in 2010, but he turned the Red Sox down. I believe it was a waiver claim. Lester is a guy that Henry said that they screwed up how they handled it. Lucchino was involved with that negotiation. My memory might be hazy but it seems like the Sox quietly ushered him out the door soon thereafter or had him moved aside around 2015. I think when he was involved the negotiations could be quite acrimonious. Now it's Dombrowski doing the negotiating, and I think these things are going smoother now.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 2, 2019 14:10:48 GMT -5
It's what you should be saying. The Sox are a top 10 franchise value based wise in all of sports. Mock me, but more people should be like me. Um no, I'm not going to act like a spoiled brat.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 2, 2019 14:51:06 GMT -5
It's what you should be saying. The Sox are a top 10 franchise value based wise in all of sports. Mock me, but more people should be like me. Um no, I'm not going to act like a spoiled brat. Your words. I call it drive.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 2, 2019 15:11:53 GMT -5
Here’s the problem, who do you give his playing time to? The overall lack of MLB depth kind of forces them to wait it out with him. Rusney, obviously 🙄 Should I have italicized that? 😂 JBJ just passed 5 years & cannot be optioned. Rusney may soon become tradeable. 5 years of low cost control remain. And the 22 million he's owed drops by 2 million each month.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 2, 2019 19:30:15 GMT -5
John Henry is stingy? That's a new take. What are every other owner in baseball? Yes, he's very stingy. Dude's making bank and he got outbid for a lot of players in the past. His 5 most wealthiest contracts he has handed out when it comes to spending as a owner is JD Martinez, Adrian Gonzalez, Dice K, Crawford, and Price. You know what's the one comparable to all of these contracts besides Price? Every single contract is in the 100 million dollar range. Exactly the reason why I don't think they have much faith in the guy resigning Betts. No. There’s a very clear distinction between being stingy and being frugal. Henry learned from his mistakes. You can argue that he’s over-corrected (I would tend to disagree, but it’s certainly arguable), but he’s being more careful about those contracts. The Hanley (I thought he had something left, too) and Panda (ugh from the get-go) deals were more money thrown at bad investments (as was Rusney). Remember some dude named Yoan Moncada? That’s not stingy. Trying to spend money wisely is why Henry owns the team in the first place. I think they’ll pay Mookie, and I think he’ll stay, because he looks like a good investment. They extended Bogey on a reasonable deal, but it’s still $120M. It’s entirely possible that the dearth of Severino/Acuna/Hicks/etc-type deals happening on the Sox are also due to the *players*. See: Mookie. Frankly, Price’s deal looks like a mistake, although he’s been far from disastrous. Eovaldi’s deal was rich. Porcello got 4 FA years at $20M AAV, which was relatively generous (and has worked out for both sides, really). You can’t run a successful business paying 50% overage for marginal talent gain. That’s the whole point of the cap. I think it’s ludicrous to expect to run a $260-270M payroll (which costs more like $300M with lux tax), signing a bunch of FAs who make $25-30M annually, and end up far too often being dead money. I mean, come on...they just extended Sale, injury questions and all, for $29M annually, which is market rate. That’s just *not* stingy...it’s an attempt at careful resource allocation. Go over the threshold too often, too much, and it withers your talent pipeline, too. Smh.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 2, 2019 19:42:05 GMT -5
John Henry, like every owner, could afford to and almost certainly should be spending a higher amount of his outlandish wealth on payroll. However, I don't think there are many players who have signed mega-contracts in free agency during the Henry era who I'm like "oooh, I wish he'd signed that dude!" so I think that specific worry is misguided. He tried very hard to acquire Alex Rodriguez, and gave David Price the seventh-largest free agent contract in baseball history. The whole Carl Crawford thing. Gonzalez and Bogaerts extensions... There's a lot of money here. The Red Sox going cheap on the bullpen and catcher and maybe first base and second base is a legitimate criticism of Henry and the organization. "John Henry isn't going to spend on Mookie Betts because he doesn't buy big ticket items" doesn't make any sense to me, especially because he... very well may end up paying a lot of money for Mookie Betts. To run with this I feel like you really have to be specific about what free agent you think Henry should've shelled it out for. I guess Jon Lester was kind of a mistake? But I don't think that was a cheapness mistake, I think that was a "we don't want to spend money on Lester in his 30's" and Lester, to his credit, proving that to be a miscalculation. Mark Texiera, Johnny Damon, Pedro Martinez, Jon Lester, Jose Abreu, Jose Contreras, Arodlis Chapman (when he defected). These were all players that were outbid by Henry and the Sox. Moncada, JD Drew, Pablo Sandoval, JD Martinez, Dice K, Crawford, and Price were all the ones that weren't. All besides Crawford, Sandoval, and Price were really good valued contracts at the time (or sign on bonus). Heck, Price might even end up being worth most of his contract too. Basically I have zero faith in this guy to spend the money for Betts. No way he's going to walk to the table with the largest offer for Betts. Someone will probably outbid him, especially given the payroll situation as it is right now (it gives Henry a reason not to spend). But how many of those they were outbid on were really “mistakes?” I mean, I kinda wished they’d kept Pedro, but that’s just homerism on my part, and particular affinity for one player. That ended up being the right move. Damon? Right move to let him go. Ellsbury? 🤣🤣🤣 Texiera? There was more at play there. Some guys just don’t wanna come to Boston, or they *want* to go elsewhere. Abreau? They just missed and bid right up there, #2 I believe. Chapman I’d’ve like to see them be more aggressive, but who knows what their internal evaluations were? Lester? By all accounts that wasn’t Henry’s doing and the guy responsible got canned...by Henry. The real mistake *there** was not using those $ for Scherzer, which I’d hoped they’d do at the time. Contreras? Why? Are they supposed to sign every single guy regardless of how they think he’ll play? Tanaka? Meh, they sued away after Daisuke and he hasn’t exactly set the world afire either. PF, I love having you on this board but sometimes you post some crazy ish. I guess it gets people fired up tho. So I dig the hot takes, but I’m def gonna fight you on this one. Come at me, bro. 😡😜🤣
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 2, 2019 19:56:14 GMT -5
Rusney, obviously 🙄 Should I have italicized that? 😂 JBJ just passed 5 years & cannot be optioned. Rusney may soon become tradeable. 5 years of low cost control remain. And the 22 million he's owed drops by 2 million each month. Lol, I should have italicized that. JBJ should play, until he *truly* proves he can’t. If they decide he can’t, it’s challenge-trade time. Put JDM in LF and Beni in CF (or Mookie to CF, JDM to right, I suppose), and get those DH ABs to Chavis. Rusney actually is an interesting case. He signed an MLB FA deal, so he’s a FA after his contract is up. He might be tradable to a team that needs a passable CF, but I believe they’re only getting what’s left on his deal. I’m not sure how said trade would affect lux tax for the Sox, though. Shouldn’t matter unless he’s called up, I believe. One of the mods might know. I don’t feel “bad” for him, cuz he got $72M, but I do feel badly that he isn’t playing MLB when he clearly is capable.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 2, 2019 20:24:22 GMT -5
JBJ just passed 5 years & cannot be optioned. Rusney may soon become tradeable. 5 years of low cost control remain. And the 22 million he's owed drops by 2 million each month. Lol, I should have italicized that. JBJ should play, until he *truly* proves he can’t. If they decide he can’t, it’s challenge-trade time. Put JDM in LF and Beni in CF (or Mookie to CF, JDM to right, I suppose), and get those DH ABs to Chavis. Rusney actually is an interesting case. He signed an MLB FA deal, so he’s a FA after his contract is up. He might be tradable to a team that needs a passable CF, but I believe they’re only getting what’s left on his deal. I’m not sure how said trade would affect lux tax for the Sox, though. Shouldn’t matter unless he’s called up, I believe. One of the mods might know. I don’t feel “bad” for him, cuz he got $72M, but I do feel badly that he isn’t playing MLB when he clearly is capable. I'm pretty sure they have 6 years of control for him after his deal if they want it. He should be an excellent 4th OF type for league minimum when they expand the roster to 26.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 2, 2019 20:26:18 GMT -5
Lol, I should have italicized that. JBJ should play, until he *truly* proves he can’t. If they decide he can’t, it’s challenge-trade time. Put JDM in LF and Beni in CF (or Mookie to CF, JDM to right, I suppose), and get those DH ABs to Chavis. Rusney actually is an interesting case. He signed an MLB FA deal, so he’s a FA after his contract is up. He might be tradable to a team that needs a passable CF, but I believe they’re only getting what’s left on his deal. I’m not sure how said trade would affect lux tax for the Sox, though. Shouldn’t matter unless he’s called up, I believe. One of the mods might know. I don’t feel “bad” for him, cuz he got $72M, but I do feel badly that he isn’t playing MLB when he clearly is capable. I'm pretty sure they have 6 years of control for him after his deal if they want it. He should be an excellent 4th OF type for league minimum when they expand the roster to 26. Really? That would actually be great if they did. He’ll be on the downswing of his career, but I agree he’d make an absolutely terrific 4th OF, and at minimal cost.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 2, 2019 21:25:07 GMT -5
Yes, he's very stingy. Dude's making bank and he got outbid for a lot of players in the past. His 5 most wealthiest contracts he has handed out when it comes to spending as a owner is JD Martinez, Adrian Gonzalez, Dice K, Crawford, and Price. You know what's the one comparable to all of these contracts besides Price? Every single contract is in the 100 million dollar range. Exactly the reason why I don't think they have much faith in the guy resigning Betts. No. There’s a very clear distinction between being stingy and being frugal. Henry learned from his mistakes. You can argue that he’s over-corrected (I would tend to disagree, but it’s certainly arguable), but he’s being more careful about those contracts. The Hanley (I thought he had something left, too) and Panda (ugh from the get-go) deals were more money thrown at bad investments (as was Rusney). Remember some dude named Yoan Moncada? That’s not stingy. Trying to spend money wisely is why Henry owns the team in the first place. I think they’ll pay Mookie, and I think he’ll stay, because he looks like a good investment. They extended Bogey on a reasonable deal, but it’s still $120M. It’s entirely possible that the dearth of Severino/Acuna/Hicks/etc-type deals happening on the Sox are also due to the *players*. See: Mookie. Frankly, Price’s deal looks like a mistake, although he’s been far from disastrous. Eovaldi’s deal was rich. Porcello got 4 FA years at $20M AAV, which was relatively generous (and has worked out for both sides, really). You can’t run a successful business paying 50% overage for marginal talent gain. That’s the whole point of the cap. I think it’s ludicrous to expect to run a $260-270M payroll (which costs more like $300M with lux tax), signing a bunch of FAs who make $25-30M annually, and end up far too often being dead money. I mean, come on...they just extended Sale, injury questions and all, for $29M annually, which is market rate. That’s just *not* stingy...it’s an attempt at careful resource allocation. Go over the threshold too often, too much, and it withers your talent pipeline, too. Smh. If you knew how much money Henry made, you would think it's stingy Telson. The only comparable to Mookie the Sox have ever dealt with is the Arod situation. The Sox simply didn't put the money down to get him, the most expensive contract in sports at the time. They really wanted Arod too. Arod literally tried to give money back to make the deal work for the Sox. Henry refused to take on that contract. Can we both agree that Mookie is either trying for the highest contract ever or second highest contract ever? So 15 years later after rejecting to take on the highest contract in all of sports, we are about to put in the same kind of position with Mookie and we are expecting different results? I'm not. There's a scenario where I can see Mookie staying. Mookie will probably have to sign for Henry's price for around 270-290 million most likely (take a lot less). Mookie has shown no indication to do so. Mookie will probably get that mega contract offer. He should, he's a tremendous talent.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 3, 2019 10:13:03 GMT -5
To add a few things, our owner is on record talking about how he doesn't like massive contracts and especially very long deals. Now to his credit he has changed from time to time, seems to listen to his GMs. Which is a good thing, yet Pedro does have a point. It's no given he pays Betts given that Betts seems determined to go to free agency and get the biggest deal he can. Which could be massive if he keeps up his play. Given Harper's deal, 13 years 400 million isn't crazy. Frankly I don't blame an owner for having issues with a deal like that for any player not named Trout, even then it's risky. I don't really care about the per year amount, just the length. It's why I hoped we could lock him up this year on a 10 year deal buying out two arbitration years.
My issue with our owner and it's not massive, but it's more short term spending, not huge long-term deals. Like I hate reducing spending in a year after revenue went through the roof. It's the perfect time to spend, with other teams not spending. Nevermind all the talk about resetting in the near future. Like if you plan on bringing your payroll to revenue ratio to like 40% or less in the near future, lets spend some money now. I don't mean huge long-term deals either. Payroll flexibility is a good thing. Yet a bullpen arm or two and an upgrade to Nunez could have got us a few extra wins so far. Like if Moreland and Pearce don't improve you shouldn't be scared to spend money to get a replacement. Don't trade extra talent so teams eat money or limit your options to teams willing to eat money. Like everyone is up in arms about Buttery. Was he the cost for them eating money on the Kinsler deal? I never got that when they went over anyways.
The luxury tax level was set at an amount that would have most big revenue teams paying large taxes every year. Not so teams would avoid it. It was meant to send lower revenue teams more money, not less money which is what is happening.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on May 3, 2019 18:19:17 GMT -5
Just popping in real quick to make sure we are all clear here that a team that never gets outbid would be very poorly run and probably the laughing stock of the sport.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 3, 2019 20:06:19 GMT -5
No. There’s a very clear distinction between being stingy and being frugal. Henry learned from his mistakes. You can argue that he’s over-corrected (I would tend to disagree, but it’s certainly arguable), but he’s being more careful about those contracts. The Hanley (I thought he had something left, too) and Panda (ugh from the get-go) deals were more money thrown at bad investments (as was Rusney). Remember some dude named Yoan Moncada? That’s not stingy. Trying to spend money wisely is why Henry owns the team in the first place. I think they’ll pay Mookie, and I think he’ll stay, because he looks like a good investment. They extended Bogey on a reasonable deal, but it’s still $120M. It’s entirely possible that the dearth of Severino/Acuna/Hicks/etc-type deals happening on the Sox are also due to the *players*. See: Mookie. Frankly, Price’s deal looks like a mistake, although he’s been far from disastrous. Eovaldi’s deal was rich. Porcello got 4 FA years at $20M AAV, which was relatively generous (and has worked out for both sides, really). You can’t run a successful business paying 50% overage for marginal talent gain. That’s the whole point of the cap. I think it’s ludicrous to expect to run a $260-270M payroll (which costs more like $300M with lux tax), signing a bunch of FAs who make $25-30M annually, and end up far too often being dead money. I mean, come on...they just extended Sale, injury questions and all, for $29M annually, which is market rate. That’s just *not* stingy...it’s an attempt at careful resource allocation. Go over the threshold too often, too much, and it withers your talent pipeline, too. Smh. If you knew how much money Henry made, you would think it's stingy Telson. The only comparable to Mookie the Sox have ever dealt with is the Arod situation. The Sox simply didn't put the money down to get him, the most expensive contract in sports at the time. They really wanted Arod too. Arod literally tried to give money back to make the deal work for the Sox. Henry refused to take on that contract. Can we both agree that Mookie is either trying for the highest contract ever or second highest contract ever? So 15 years later after rejecting to take on the highest contract in all of sports, we are about to put in the same kind of position with Mookie and we are expecting different results? I'm not. There's a scenario where I can see Mookie staying. Mookie will probably have to sign for Henry's price for around 270-290 million most likely (take a lot less). Mookie has shown no indication to do so. Mookie will probably get that mega contract offer. He should, he's a tremendous talent. The ARod thing was nixed by the Player’s Association, not Henry. They wouldn’t allow the change in salary. Again, it’s not *just* about percentage of total income. There are significant disincentives with future consequence to deter reckless overspending. The result is that massive dead-weight deals are tolerable at the 1-2 level, but if you go to 3-4 and have other big contracts (Sale, Price), it hamstrings the team. Then you need to spend big in FA to replace players who already cost a ton but can’t perform, because your minor league system gets hit and you can’t develop or trade, and you’re stuck in a spiral of overspending and underperforming. It’s irrelevant, in many ways, how much Henry makes/is worth. It’s crystal clear that he’s trying to win. His aversion to spending (recklessly) is about long-term consequence and competitiveness, not hoarding $.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 3, 2019 20:18:04 GMT -5
To add a few things, our owner is on record talking about how he doesn't like massive contracts and especially very long deals. Now to his credit he has changed from time to time, seems to listen to his GMs. Which is a good thing, yet Pedro does have a point. It's no given he pays Betts given that Betts seems determined to go to free agency and get the biggest deal he can. Which could be massive if he keeps up his play. Given Harper's deal, 13 years 400 million isn't crazy. Frankly I don't blame an owner for having issues with a deal like that for any player not named Trout, even then it's risky. I don't really care about the per year amount, just the length. It's why I hoped we could lock him up this year on a 10 year deal buying out two arbitration years. My issue with our owner and it's not massive, but it's more short term spending, not huge long-term deals. Like I hate reducing spending in a year after revenue went through the roof. It's the perfect time to spend, with other teams not spending. Nevermind all the talk about resetting in the near future. Like if you plan on bringing your payroll to revenue ratio to like 40% or less in the near future, lets spend some money now. I don't mean huge long-term deals either. Payroll flexibility is a good thing. Yet a bullpen arm or two and an upgrade to Nunez could have got us a few extra wins so far. Like if Moreland and Pearce don't improve you shouldn't be scared to spend money to get a replacement. Don't trade extra talent so teams eat money or limit your options to teams willing to eat money. Like everyone is up in arms about Buttery. Was he the cost for them eating money on the Kinsler deal? I never got that when they went over anyways. The luxury tax level was set at an amount that would have most big revenue teams paying large taxes every year. Not so teams would avoid it. It was meant to send lower revenue teams more money, not less money which is what is happening. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here; my only caveat to the second paragraph is that I think some of that reticence to spend on fairly costly short-term deals is about long-term cost certainty and the upcoming roster flux. I do think it’s somewhat fair to say, “let’s go all-in on some 1-yr deals, cost be damned, and take advantage of our current roster.” We’re just not privy to the negotiation demands/years/etc. In the end, if they’re paying the 50% overage on a $10M deal, taking the amateur talent hit, they ought to be damn sure it’s worth it, performance-wise. But that’s also why I’m more sanguine about Mookie’s situation. He’s given every indication of being a generational talent who *should* age fairly well. And there’s a functional hard cap on spending for players like that, where even at AAVs in the $40M range, you’re likely to still get excess value for a good stretch on the front end. Hence, my agreement with you on a 10-year/$350M or so deal for Mookie, ideally crescendo-decrescendo that front-loads excess value and reduces *some* back-end risk.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 3, 2019 21:51:39 GMT -5
If you knew how much money Henry made, you would think it's stingy Telson. The only comparable to Mookie the Sox have ever dealt with is the Arod situation. The Sox simply didn't put the money down to get him, the most expensive contract in sports at the time. They really wanted Arod too. Arod literally tried to give money back to make the deal work for the Sox. Henry refused to take on that contract. Can we both agree that Mookie is either trying for the highest contract ever or second highest contract ever? So 15 years later after rejecting to take on the highest contract in all of sports, we are about to put in the same kind of position with Mookie and we are expecting different results? I'm not. There's a scenario where I can see Mookie staying. Mookie will probably have to sign for Henry's price for around 270-290 million most likely (take a lot less). Mookie has shown no indication to do so. Mookie will probably get that mega contract offer. He should, he's a tremendous talent. The ARod thing was nixed by the Player’s Association, not Henry. They wouldn’t allow the change in salary. Again, it’s not *just* about percentage of total income. There are significant disincentives with future consequence to deter reckless overspending. The result is that massive dead-weight deals are tolerable at the 1-2 level, but if you go to 3-4 and have other big contracts (Sale, Price), it hamstrings the team. Then you need to spend big in FA to replace players who already cost a ton but can’t perform, because your minor league system gets hit and you can’t develop or trade, and you’re stuck in a spiral of overspending and underperforming. It’s irrelevant, in many ways, how much Henry makes/is worth. It’s crystal clear that he’s trying to win. His aversion to spending (recklessly) is about long-term consequence and competitiveness, not hoarding $. The player's association nixed the deal because of the fact that Arod tried to give money back because Henry didn't want to pay the freight. That is exactly the point here. If Henry pays the whole contract, Arod is retiring in a Sox uniform (possibly). That's why the big bad Yankees got him at the time. There's only one scenario where I see Henry paying the freight for Mookie. He decides to sell the team in 5 years and says "screw it, this is the next owner's problem anyways, I'll pay 350 million and only pay 3 years of this." Basically Jeffry Loria like.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 3, 2019 21:52:40 GMT -5
Just popping in real quick to make sure we are all clear here that a team that never gets outbid would be very poorly run and probably the laughing stock of the sport. Not if you're picky and chose the right players to sign (smart decisions). Add- The Sox sign Jose Abreu, they avoid the Rusney contract and Sandoval or Hanley contract for example. First base isn't also a black hole like it has been off and on the past 6 years. Which is better practice?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 4, 2019 13:01:07 GMT -5
To add a few things, our owner is on record talking about how he doesn't like massive contracts and especially very long deals. Now to his credit he has changed from time to time, seems to listen to his GMs. Which is a good thing, yet Pedro does have a point. It's no given he pays Betts given that Betts seems determined to go to free agency and get the biggest deal he can. Which could be massive if he keeps up his play. Given Harper's deal, 13 years 400 million isn't crazy. Frankly I don't blame an owner for having issues with a deal like that for any player not named Trout, even then it's risky. I don't really care about the per year amount, just the length. It's why I hoped we could lock him up this year on a 10 year deal buying out two arbitration years. My issue with our owner and it's not massive, but it's more short term spending, not huge long-term deals. Like I hate reducing spending in a year after revenue went through the roof. It's the perfect time to spend, with other teams not spending. Nevermind all the talk about resetting in the near future. Like if you plan on bringing your payroll to revenue ratio to like 40% or less in the near future, lets spend some money now. I don't mean huge long-term deals either. Payroll flexibility is a good thing. Yet a bullpen arm or two and an upgrade to Nunez could have got us a few extra wins so far. Like if Moreland and Pearce don't improve you shouldn't be scared to spend money to get a replacement. Don't trade extra talent so teams eat money or limit your options to teams willing to eat money. Like everyone is up in arms about Buttery. Was he the cost for them eating money on the Kinsler deal? I never got that when they went over anyways. The luxury tax level was set at an amount that would have most big revenue teams paying large taxes every year. Not so teams would avoid it. It was meant to send lower revenue teams more money, not less money which is what is happening. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here; my only caveat to the second paragraph is that I think some of that reticence to spend on fairly costly short-term deals is about long-term cost certainty and the upcoming roster flux. I do think it’s somewhat fair to say, “let’s go all-in on some 1-yr deals, cost be damned, and take advantage of our current roster.” We’re just not privy to the negotiation demands/years/etc. In the end, if they’re paying the 50% overage on a $10M deal, taking the amateur talent hit, they ought to be damn sure it’s worth it, performance-wise. But that’s also why I’m more sanguine about Mookie’s situation. He’s given every indication of being a generational talent who *should* age fairly well. And there’s a functional hard cap on spending for players like that, where even at AAVs in the $40M range, you’re likely to still get excess value for a good stretch on the front end. Hence, my agreement with you on a 10-year/$350M or so deal for Mookie, ideally crescendo-decrescendo that front-loads excess value and reduces *some* back-end risk. I think we can agree this team has some big holes that could use some upgrades if players don't bounce back. They can still make the moves and now have a lot better idea of how guys are doing. It's just going to cost you minor league talent in trades. So I won't fault them for trying to stay under, even if it ends up costing us more in the long run. Yet if they keep a stay under at all costs strategy I can't get behind that. I hope things change, yet it looks like we can use one more solid reliever, a good 4th OF, and a big bat for 1B, who is good enough to DH. Pearce is killing us, because you have no one to DH if Martinez plays the OF. It's early, so he has some time. Yet he's been so bad that you'll need to be looking for an upgrade if he can't improve in May. Doesn't that seem light given the current deals? Like two guys I have a big notch below Betts got what 10 and 13 year deals for 300 and 330 million. So 35 million seems about right, but wouldn't you want like a 100 million more than Harper? That seems to be Betts mission to get the biggest deal he can. Assuming his play doesn't drop off he'll be the best free agent to hit the market since who? That's the scary part with him, some team goes crazy. I want him back, but I have my limits and hate ten year deals. I wouldn't even consider a 13 year deal. Which really brings me back to if Betts won't sign an extension no matter what you offer. I don't feel good about him staying frankly. I want no part of a bidding war for him. The smarter play might be to trade him and do a mini rebuild, bridge year type thing. I hate saying that, but current contracts just exploded at the worst possible time. I want my owner spending, yet locking up close to 20% of the team payroll in one guy for 10 to 13 years is crazy for any player. Hasn't there been like one guy, that ended up being worth a contract like that? The first A-Rod deal, yet he was crazy young.
|
|
|