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 electricityverdugo99 on Jan 17, 2021 15:02:04 GMT -5
They aren't done yet.
|
|
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Jan 17, 2021 15:04:56 GMT -5
The only thing that this kind of reassures is that Houck is probably headed back to AAA at the beginning of the season with-
Eduardo Rodriguez Eovaldi Free Agent Pivetta Perez
To start the rotation to begin the year. I can see Pivetta being optioned once Sale gets back if he's not performing (50/50 chance he's getting results by this time).
|
|
mg050369
Rookie
Posts: 32
Member is Online
|
Post by mg050369 on Jan 17, 2021 15:06:15 GMT -5
The only thing that this kind of reassures is that Houck is probably headed back to AAA at the beginning of the season with- Eduardo Rodriguez Eovaldi Free Agent Pivetta Perez To start the rotation to begin the year. I can see Pivetta being optioned once Sale gets back if he's not performing (50/50 chance he's getting results by this time). Pivetta is out of options.
|
|
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Jan 17, 2021 15:08:11 GMT -5
The only thing that this kind of reassures is that Houck is probably headed back to AAA at the beginning of the season with- Eduardo Rodriguez Eovaldi Free Agent Pivetta Perez To start the rotation to begin the year. I can see Pivetta being optioned once Sale gets back if he's not performing (50/50 chance he's getting results by this time). Pivetta is out of options. Ohh crap, nice call. Thought he had one left. I guess he'll go to the bullpen then.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jan 17, 2021 15:20:15 GMT -5
Matt Moore is right around the corner
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Jan 17, 2021 15:37:13 GMT -5
...Maybe you can tell each team what their revenue stream will be for next year and how many fans will be in the park, so the GMs will know how much they can spend. (NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION - How much can each GM spend? If you can not answer then maybe the GMs are on strict spending limits. The teams cannot print money like the government !!!!! This is the issue that few on the board seem willing to bring up. There are reports of $100 million losses for some teams. That's a tough way to run a business. There is still enormous uncertainty given the emergence of more infectious strains of the virus. This is a serious game of risk/reward. It's not surprising at all that the reigns are being pulled in, that there's so much caution. Norm, thank you are your comments as many on this and other sites act as if nothing has changed. Tens of thousands of small businesses have failed. Not only is that a loss of disposable income to go to Red Sox games and pay for food and souvenirs, but retirement savings. That also means less money for goods and services meaning advertisers will have less money to advertise and less money for TV contracts. One commenter acted like the fans in the stands do not matter, because the big money comes from TV. The gate receipts do matter, so does the impact of advertising dollars. The point is that we do not know whether TV contracts will be affected or not. If not then spend away, but teams can spend until they have a more clear picture. The Red Sox will sign players, but they are waiting for the price to drop. The fans are just too impatient, and the whining has made too many sites unreadable. (This one is not near as bad as most of the readers and posters on other sites as the commenters are WAY more intelligent here than other sites. You can tell by how articulate and well thought out the posts are. The perfect example of how the offseason has changed in recent years is JD Martinez in 2018. He asked for $200 million and ended up signing for $110 million in like February or March. The money he got is so much that he cannot even opt-out as $19.35 million is more than other teams are willing to pay (I predicted he would be with the Red Sox the whole 5 years for that reason back in 2018), so why sign a player early in the offseason when the team can save tens of millions in some cases by waiting. (The only reason to waste money and sign players early is to keep whining, complaining, pouting fans from saying nasty things about the owners and that would not be money well spent).
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Jan 17, 2021 15:48:33 GMT -5
What is a “Chaim Bloom special”? I mean, what has he done that creates this category? I’m not anti-Bloom, but I continue to he baffled by these sorts of assessment. He resigns a guy from last years’ team and it is unusually impressive? Was resigning Robbie Ray a Mark Shapiro special? I get wanting to see lottery picks as winners. Perez is a solid signing, and he’ll be a good back end starter. But I’m waiting for the miracle move that justifies the Bloomdulation. He’s done... fine. Nothing that warrants viewing him as a wunderkind, though. He released a guy that he wants on the team and ultimately resigned for the sake of saving $1M on a $200M payroll. Granted, they may have some additional restraints this year, but really what difference does this make to the budget when they risked losing Perez to another team? If you want a working definition for a Chaim Bloom special I would call it "acting in a way that is technically sound from an accounting perspective while being strategically dubious". This is how the game is played and has been for years in the front office. The $1.85 million saved can be used on other players and help keep the team under the CBT. You obviously are not a numbers person and the almost $2 million saved is not your money. If it was you might feel different. Perez wanted to come back, and if he had other serious offers Bloom would have signed him earlier. That is why the classic line about keep in touch with the players is so over used in all the off season articles. The “team A is interested in player B.” Omg, every team is interested in everybody. I wish the writers would not write until the player has signed!
|
|
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Jan 17, 2021 17:30:28 GMT -5
This is how the game is played and has been for years in the front office. The $1.85 million saved can be used on other players and help keep the team under the CBT. You obviously are not a numbers person and the almost $2 million saved is not your money. If it was you might feel different. Perez wanted to come back, and if he had other serious offers Bloom would have signed him earlier. That is why the classic line about keep in touch with the players is so over used in all the off season articles. The “team A is interested in player B.” Omg, every team is interested in everybody. I wish the writers would not write until the player has signed! Your statement reinforces my point. From an academic standpoint they saved money, hooray accounting and good for Henry's wallet. However, the Sox are $25M (or something in that range) below the first CBT threshold and if they don't spend all of what's remaining then the effort was pointless from a strategic standpoint while adding the risk of losing the player. Just another accountant missing the forest for the trees. Maybe there was a bigger plan and I don't know what their actual budget is, but my guess is he did this more out of habit because this is what he had to do in Tampa. This is only Perez, so it's not that big a deal either way but the reality is this is a microcosm of the concern people had when Bloom was brought in. Can he handle a $200M payroll? Is he going to be so busy patting himself on the back for saving $2M that he doesn't get the pieces needed with the resources he has to compete and win? I've liked most of his moves so far, but they've mostly been small market moves and I'm unconvinced that he can or is inclined to make big market moves that get teams to the WS. I think Bloom is salivating at the chance to spend real money, but saving around the margins is what he was brought in to do. I keep thinking this is another reset year. Hopefully they get a lot for JDM and Barnes this deadline if that's the case. The real money is going to be spent on next year's top free agent class.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,926
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 17, 2021 18:51:32 GMT -5
This was always a real possibility, to the point that when they non-tendered him, we first assumed they would just re-sign him for less. I still think they have work left to do on extracting his upside, which is to say, they project him a bit better than the consensus.
The goal was to find the best possible LHP for the back end of the rotation who would sign a 1-year deal, a guy who would likely be out a starting job once Sale comes back, especially if everyone is healthy. It's a pure depth piece.
Clearly they kicked the tires on the other guys in the market who could fit that role -- of whom only Happ looked significantly better to me, and that just was a cursory look.
We'll see how many such pitchers do end up signing comparable deals, and then we'll see how they all fare.
Assuming they sign {Odorizzi}, Hocuk, Pivetta, and Perez are competing for the last 2 spots in the rotation coming out of ST. (I rank them in that order.) Since someone will probably get hurt, that's exactly the depth you want.
|
|
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Jan 17, 2021 20:03:21 GMT -5
This was always a real possibility, to the point that when they non-tendered him, we first assumed they would just re-sign him for less. I still think they have work left to do on extracting his upside, which is to say, they project him a bit better than the consensus.
The goal was to find the best possible LHP for the back end of the rotation who would sign a 1-year deal, a guy who would likely be out a starting job once Sale comes back, especially if everyone is healthy. It's a pure depth piece.
Clearly they kicked the tires on the other guys in the market who could fit that role -- of whom only Happ looked significantly better to me, and that just was a cursory look.
We'll see how many such pitchers do end up signing comparable deals, and then we'll see how they all fare.
Assuming they sign {Odorizzi}, Hocuk, Pivetta, and Perez are competing for the last 2 spots in the rotation coming out of ST. (I rank them in that order.) Since someone will probably get hurt, that's exactly the depth you want. It would be awesome if Houck got a spot in the rotation over Perez, since he's got more upside. I don't see it to start the year at least. Just for depth reasons. Houck has options.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jan 17, 2021 21:22:40 GMT -5
Matt Moore is right around the corner Not sure if its deeper since they're bringing back the exact same starters. I guess because Erod is healthy the statement isn't a lie. Rotation is still bad and Barnes is still the closer...
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Jan 17, 2021 21:30:57 GMT -5
Matt Moore is right around the corner Not sure if its deeper since they're bringing back the exact same starters. I guess because Erod is healthy the statement isn't a lie. Rotation is still bad and Barnes is still the closer... Like Alex said, “they aren’t done yet”....
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,029
|
Post by cdj on Jan 17, 2021 21:37:33 GMT -5
Didn’t realize Moore pitched as well as he did in Japan, I wouldn’t mind him on a minors deal
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jan 17, 2021 22:46:03 GMT -5
Not sure if its deeper since they're bringing back the exact same starters. I guess because Erod is healthy the statement isn't a lie. Rotation is still bad and Barnes is still the closer... Like Alex said, “they aren’t done yet”.... Not really holding my breath for any move of consequence. But we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jan 17, 2021 23:09:15 GMT -5
Perez wasn't the problem last year. The problem last year was our utter lack of depth. Perez is reliable and will take the ball every fifth day and will keep the team in the game. I like this move too, especially if it means we have 1 more starter signing as well. Bloom may well be finding out that questionable FA starter costs are running more than thought and guys.. Like Odorizzi, who a lot of people like wanted signed on this board, Walker, whom I'd like to see in Boston are going to cost more than thought. Neither are worth more than say 10m over 2-3y max, wouldn't go that long on Walker (3y). Going back to someone like Perez, who shocks me they managed to sign for a tad less than amount they just recently declined him for is a solid move on their part. Throwing good money after questionable guys long term is not smart however.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 18, 2021 0:00:04 GMT -5
Matt Moore is right around the corner Not sure if its deeper since they're bringing back the exact same starters. I guess because Erod is healthy the statement isn't a lie. Rotation is still bad and Barnes is still the closer... Do you mean the starters at the beginning of the year, or at the end? It looked a bit different after they brought in Houck and then Pivetta, certainly not the same group they started the season with. That was something I know I was thankful for, they were actually winning series against good teams.
There's not much comparison, and they'll be even less if Rodriguez returns to form. And that's before they add any additional starters.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Jan 18, 2021 0:28:20 GMT -5
Not sure if its deeper since they're bringing back the exact same starters. I guess because Erod is healthy the statement isn't a lie. Rotation is still bad and Barnes is still the closer... Do you mean the starters at the beginning of the year, or at the end? It looked a bit different after they brought in Houck and then Pivetta, certainly not the same group they started the season with. That was something I know I was thankful for, they were actually winning series against good teams.
There's not much comparison, and they'll be even less if Rodriguez returns to form. And that's before they add any additional starters.
Hall, Hart, Covey, Kickam, springs, Godley. That was the issue with the staff last year. From the time Erod got hurt until the last 15 games or so the Sox were literally giving 2 of 5 games away but using pitchers that had no business being on an MLB roster. It is already in much better shape now. That said, there is still much work to be done.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Jan 18, 2021 1:03:13 GMT -5
Those are non factors unless/until more injuries happen, like Norm explained above. Rodriquez, Eovaldi, Perez, Pivetta, Houck and whoever other veteran arm they bring in will be ahead of that motley crew of AAAA guys and Pivetta + Houck are here now when they were not last April 1st, so already +2.
Imagine will end up with a handful of starts from the crowd u posted, but just maybe after the AS break Mata will be ready, further pushing them all back.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Jan 18, 2021 7:46:08 GMT -5
Everyone read anything about the corresponding 40-man roster move? My guess would be Springs or Chatham.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 18, 2021 9:29:55 GMT -5
This is the issue that few on the board seem willing to bring up. There are reports of $100 million losses for some teams. That's a tough way to run a business. There is still enormous uncertainty given the emergence of more infectious strains of the virus. This is a serious game of risk/reward. It's not surprising at all that the reigns are being pulled in, that there's so much caution. Norm, thank you are your comments as many on this and other sites act as if nothing has changed. Tens of thousands of small businesses have failed. Not only is that a loss of disposable income to go to Red Sox games and pay for food and souvenirs, but retirement savings. That also means less money for goods and services meaning advertisers will have less money to advertise and less money for TV contracts. One commenter acted like the fans in the stands do not matter, because the big money comes from TV. The gate receipts do matter, so does the impact of advertising dollars. The point is that we do not know whether TV contracts will be affected or not. If not then spend away, but teams can spend until they have a more clear picture. The Red Sox will sign players, but they are waiting for the price to drop. The fans are just too impatient, and the whining has made too many sites unreadable. (This one is not near as bad as most of the readers and posters on other sites as the commenters are WAY more intelligent here than other sites. You can tell by how articulate and well thought out the posts are. The perfect example of how the offseason has changed in recent years is JD Martinez in 2018. He asked for $200 million and ended up signing for $110 million in like February or March. The money he got is so much that he cannot even opt-out as $19.35 million is more than other teams are willing to pay (I predicted he would be with the Red Sox the whole 5 years for that reason back in 2018), so why sign a player early in the offseason when the team can save tens of millions in some cases by waiting. (The only reason to waste money and sign players early is to keep whining, complaining, pouting fans from saying nasty things about the owners and that would not be money well spent). The Red Sox own NESN and the money they make is tied to ratings. So when people talk about TV money being important to the Red Sox they are 100% right. The Red Sox aren't like most teams that just have TV deals locked in. Even with the economic times, it's still smart for them to spend so they can get better ratings than last year. We've seen this many times over the last 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 18, 2021 10:02:57 GMT -5
Norm, thank you are your comments as many on this and other sites act as if nothing has changed. Tens of thousands of small businesses have failed. Not only is that a loss of disposable income to go to Red Sox games and pay for food and souvenirs, but retirement savings. That also means less money for goods and services meaning advertisers will have less money to advertise and less money for TV contracts. One commenter acted like the fans in the stands do not matter, because the big money comes from TV. The gate receipts do matter, so does the impact of advertising dollars. The point is that we do not know whether TV contracts will be affected or not. If not then spend away, but teams can spend until they have a more clear picture. The Red Sox will sign players, but they are waiting for the price to drop. The fans are just too impatient, and the whining has made too many sites unreadable. (This one is not near as bad as most of the readers and posters on other sites as the commenters are WAY more intelligent here than other sites. You can tell by how articulate and well thought out the posts are. The perfect example of how the offseason has changed in recent years is JD Martinez in 2018. He asked for $200 million and ended up signing for $110 million in like February or March. The money he got is so much that he cannot even opt-out as $19.35 million is more than other teams are willing to pay (I predicted he would be with the Red Sox the whole 5 years for that reason back in 2018), so why sign a player early in the offseason when the team can save tens of millions in some cases by waiting. (The only reason to waste money and sign players early is to keep whining, complaining, pouting fans from saying nasty things about the owners and that would not be money well spent). The Red Sox own NESN and the money they make is tied to ratings. So when people talk about TV money being important to the Red Sox they are 100% right. The Red Sox aren't like most teams that just have TV deals locked in. Even with the economic times, it's still smart for them to spend so they can get better ratings than last year. We've seen this many times over the last 20 years. Everyone keeps acting like owners definitely had bad years. A lot of average joes had bad years. Teams had bad years on paper (I suspect much of which gets written off). But I bet many owners had pretty solid years. The Dow was up over 7% for 2020. S&P 500 over 16%. The NASDAQ was up over 40%. Best year since 2009. The fact is, while a lot of people were suffering, the uber-rich made a lot of money last year. So pleading poverty seems like blowing smoke up my duff. How many owners’ earnings come primarily from their team? I’d guess it is a minority, maybe a great minority. I’m certainly not arguing for long term hemorrhaging... but any investor knows there are down periods, and cheaping out while you are down is not a good strategy. Add: I’m not attacking Henry, per se. more the entire league of hand-wringing. It looks like the Padres and Dodgers are the only ownerships aggressively pursuing being the best or even putting the best entertainment out there. TV is a source of revenue? How eager am I to sit for 3+ hours to watch Martin Perez lead the Sox?
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Jan 18, 2021 11:04:00 GMT -5
The Red Sox own NESN and the money they make is tied to ratings. So when people talk about TV money being important to the Red Sox they are 100% right. The Red Sox aren't like most teams that just have TV deals locked in. Even with the economic times, it's still smart for them to spend so they can get better ratings than last year. We've seen this many times over the last 20 years. Everyone keeps acting like owners definitely had bad years. A lot of average joes had bad years. Teams had bad years on paper (I suspect much of which gets written off). But I bet many owners had pretty solid years. The Dow was up over 7% for 2020. S&P 500 over 16%. The NASDAQ was up over 40%. Best year since 2009. The fact is, while a lot of people were suffering, the uber-rich made a lot of money last year. So pleading poverty seems like blowing smoke up my duff. How many owners’ earnings come primarily from their team? I’d guess it is a minority, maybe a great minority. I’m certainly not arguing for long term hemorrhaging... but any investor knows there are down periods, and cheaping out while you are down is not a good strategy. Add: I’m not attacking Henry, per se. more the entire league of hand-wringing. It looks like the Padres and Dodgers are the only ownerships aggressively pursuing being the best or even putting the best entertainment out there. TV is a source of revenue? How eager am I to sit for 3+ hours to watch Martin Perez lead the Sox? The stock market is up, because there is nowhere else for investors to put money when money market interest rates are 0.01 percent meaning $100,000 makes a grand total of $10 for the entire year. The average Joe does not own stock other than his 401k which he does not understand. I am a securities licensed professional FINRA licensed 6, 7, 63, 65, 66, and 24 (securities manager) and taught investing for over 20 years. The TV contract the Red Sox have I have not paid any attention to as we do not get NESN on the west coast, but gate receipts are still a significant part of what every team including the Red Sox earn even if TV money may be more.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaymabe on Jan 18, 2021 11:29:29 GMT -5
As for the corresponding roster move for Perez, I think it will be Springs. Chatham is MLB ready and actually may factor in the the second base equation if we don't make a move for another free agent. Speaking of familiar faces coming back, I have heard zero news regarding Brandon Workman. I know he had a tough go of it in Philly, but he's been strong for us in the last few seasons. Although I don't know if we'll see the 2019 version again, I'm sure he much better than what he showed in Philly. Just based on how he ended the year, he should be available on a cheap 1 to 2 year deal. I'm not sold on him as closer, but I think he's an experienced Boston-proven arm that is truly undervalued based on his performance after he was dealt.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 18, 2021 12:39:32 GMT -5
Everyone keeps acting like owners definitely had bad years. A lot of average joes had bad years. Teams had bad years on paper (I suspect much of which gets written off). But I bet many owners had pretty solid years. The Dow was up over 7% for 2020. S&P 500 over 16%. The NASDAQ was up over 40%. Best year since 2009. The fact is, while a lot of people were suffering, the uber-rich made a lot of money last year. So pleading poverty seems like blowing smoke up my duff. How many owners’ earnings come primarily from their team? I’d guess it is a minority, maybe a great minority. I’m certainly not arguing for long term hemorrhaging... but any investor knows there are down periods, and cheaping out while you are down is not a good strategy. Add: I’m not attacking Henry, per se. more the entire league of hand-wringing. It looks like the Padres and Dodgers are the only ownerships aggressively pursuing being the best or even putting the best entertainment out there. TV is a source of revenue? How eager am I to sit for 3+ hours to watch Martin Perez lead the Sox? The stock market is up, because there is nowhere else for investors to put money when money market interest rates are 0.01 percent meaning $100,000 makes a grand total of $10 for the entire year. The average Joe does not own stock other than his 401k which he does not understand. I am a securities licensed professional FINRA licensed 6, 7, 63, 65, 66, and 24 (securities manager) and taught investing for over 20 years. The TV contract the Red Sox have I have not paid any attention to as we do not get NESN on the west coast, but gate receipts are still a significant part of what every team including the Red Sox earn even if TV money may be more. The Red Sox have the ability to make revenue based on TV ratings, yet they need to be good in order for that to happen. Not understanding they own NESN means you don't understand the revenue streams the Red Sox have. They have a TV contract for revenue sharing purposes that's below market value, yet our owner also owns the Network. So he gets profits, yet those are driven by ratings and ratings are driven by how good the team does. So while certain teams it makes sense to cut losses and not spend. That's not the Red Sox. Spending 30 million could mean hundreds of millions for NESN, which they own. That's why people say TV money is so important for the Red Sox and the loss of other revenue doesn't really matter. Not spending and having a crappy team yet again will just increases the losses, not lessen them.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 18, 2021 13:15:34 GMT -5
Losing some portion of your revenue, say 20%, still means losing 20%. If that takes you from comfortably over your margin to the edge of profitability, you still have to rethink your business model. That takes time and thought.
|
|
|