|
Post by beavertontim on Jun 24, 2020 11:28:41 GMT -5
I think a lot of players will take one year deals this off season. With a new CBA and possibly and increase revenue split for the players it makes sense for most to sign short term deals. That said, Betts may be a special case. I could see baseball adapting a max contract rule like in hockey or basketball. The number could very well be less than what Betts could get in a deal. I don't find it very likely the MLBPA will allow a cap on players earning power. There would need to be some serious give back by the owners, such as opening their books to the players and sharing in revenues when they go above expectations. I think the cap on the higher wage earners is the only way beyond a max contract that the mid and lower earners get any earnings power back. I don't see a way when a team like BOston is spending 45% of the luxury cap on four players that there is really any other way. I also believe MLB will always pay out less to its players than any other sport. While MILB players get paid peanuts, when you combine these salaries, amatuer signing bonuses, player development costs, etc, MLB has costs built into their structure no other sport has. This money has to come from somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Jun 24, 2020 9:36:55 GMT -5
A 60 game schedule is going to be weird. Will there be trades? Any team can start off hot or cold. Hopefully Ryan Weber can have a 2.5 ERA with a xFIP of 5 in his limited action. Still glad Sale and the team decided to get the surgery and just punt on this pointless, bizarre season. Most of us knew he needed it and I think as soon as the season became a giant question mark they shut him down. With the rise in Coronavirus cases, I'm not even sure we'll be able to play into October. The Red Sox just need 1 game (I think) so that their luxury tax is reset for the following season. It'll be interesting to see what Betts gets in free agency. He might opt for a 1-year deal and bet on himself again because I don't think there's going to be a ton of money floating around this next off-season. I can see Martinez not opting out now. I think a lot of players will take one year deals this off season. With a new CBA and possibly and increase revenue split for the players it makes sense for most to sign short term deals. That said, Betts may be a special case. I could see baseball adapting a max contract rule like in hockey or basketball. The number could very well be less than what Betts could get in a deal.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Jun 17, 2020 0:17:06 GMT -5
It seems simple to determine what the net revenue loss of having sero attendance would be. The players get prorated salaries less 50% of the projected revenue from having fans in the seats for the number of games played prorated among all players based on salary. To give the players a full prorated salary when the teams will be losing over a million dollars per game in lost live fan revenue seems pretty one sided. The players should at least share in this loss of revenue.Why? Why? The players say they want a season. In a 50 game season the net revenue shortfall with no fans could easily be 75 million per team. At that level it would make little to no sense for the owners to go through and play the season. I know the owners are greedy and awful, but lets not paint the players as saints here. They are not. Owners still have full payments due on their debt, are paying all or some of operating staff, etc. I get it. This was not in the CBA, but at the time of the CBA, or even at the time when COVID-19 closed baseball, nobody knew what the impact on the game, or even the country, would be. It is not uncommon for CBA's in other businesses to be reworked mid contract in the case of an extraordinary world event. Why not baseball? On another front, considering recent case spikes, should baseball really be considering even a shortened season anyway?
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Jun 16, 2020 19:30:23 GMT -5
It seems simple to determine what the net revenue loss of having sero attendance would be.
The players get prorated salaries less 50% of the projected revenue from having fans in the seats for the number of games played prorated among all players based on salary.
To give the players a full prorated salary when the teams will be losing over a million dollars per game in lost live fan revenue seems pretty one sided. The players should at least share in this loss of revenue.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Apr 5, 2020 10:41:08 GMT -5
Same type of venues, same type of audiences, though a scripted sport, you can make a case it is a sport.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Mar 30, 2020 10:15:45 GMT -5
A few things
If this season is cancelled, many smaller market teams will likely end up posting huge losses for the year. Additionally the country we will either be in or just coming out of perhaps one of the worst recessions in history impacting consumer and business disposable incomes. On top of that, many, especially baseballs core older fan base, may have an ongoing concern about going to events with large crowds in fear of getting sick since this virus will not be gone-gone for at least 18 months.
Some of these losses will be enough to put many teams finances into weak positions. Some teams already not in compliance with loan terms will need to ask for additional debt to cover current obligations. Loan covenant tests will likely be failed requiring teams to take restructure debt. Some of this restructuring will likely come with covenants limiting team payrolls. Banks are getting hammered right now. Expect banks to be eager to restructure, but expect the covenants to be very specific and air tight.
Wouldn't this have a huge impact FA spending and possibly even the 2021 CBA?
I could see a scenario where we see the current CBA extended for one to three years to allow MLB finances to come back into line.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Jan 2, 2020 19:55:29 GMT -5
Longhi will get a "long" look is ST. Maybe start the inevitable move of Devers to first? Hernandez seems like a natural to try out there as well in an attempt to make him fit better into the Holt replacement role? Disagree emphatically with the bolded assertion as any sort of inevitability. Devers is already about a league average 3B. I think Dalbec is less than a year out. He will be better at third than Devers. If Dalbec is at third, Devers goes to first.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Jan 2, 2020 16:23:33 GMT -5
Longhi will get a "long" look is ST. Maybe start the inevitable move of Devers to first? Hernandez seems like a natural to try out there as well in an attempt to make him fit better into the Holt replacement role?
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Dec 29, 2019 14:10:17 GMT -5
I am sure these dots have been connected already but doesn't it make sense to get under because of a Mookie contract next year. I'm not the resident guru on the math and penalties but if the Sox want to give him 35 million or so what is the added cost if they don't get under? I know it depends on future deals but Raffy and ERod are coming up soon enough. The CBA will be a big factor also, their will be change. The CBA could be the big driver. Baseball seems to want to look more like basketball from a labor perspective. Caps are not going away, they may become more of an issue going forward, not less. Likely we will see things like Bird Rights added, max contracts in dollars and length, a higher percentage of the gross, shorter team control windows, etc. I know the players are feeling a bit on the short end of the stick right now, but the elites may not want the give backs that will undoubtedly be added to what the players want.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Dec 23, 2019 11:19:10 GMT -5
Crickets...... From MLBTR Chat With Mark Polishuk, "Not much as of late. Even moreso than his salary or lack of hitting, teams must be wary of Bradley's defensive decline (at least via UZR/150 and Defensive Runs Saved) in 2019. If he isn't providing elite defense and his bat still isn't productive, then Bradley doesn't have much value overall" www.jotcast.com/chat/mlbtr-chat-with-mark-polishuk-6626.htmlWe always over value our own assets while under valuing those that others have. JBJ should have been dealt last winter. I think this is case and point why Betts needs to either be dealt this winter if the team wants much more than a draft pick for him. Sometimes it is OK to sell high.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Nov 24, 2019 16:22:23 GMT -5
I think both the players and the union should go for some kind of option opt out contract. Veteran players who are out of options could sign a one year contract that restores a teams ability to have full option rights the player for that season. Seems like this type of deal would allow marginal players to get signed and see the bigs better than the current system of sign, bring up when needed then waive/release when the need passes .
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Oct 19, 2019 15:43:46 GMT -5
I love baseball, but owners just seem like vile human beings. Probably a response to increased costs related to paying minor league players more money and, more importantly, having to give up more of the gross to MLB players in the next CBA.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Oct 6, 2019 15:30:54 GMT -5
Did anyone else gag in their Cheerios when they read this line in the Globe? I love what Duran has done, but for Peter Abraham to write in a paper owned by the Red Sox owner that he could help make it "easier" to deal Mookie is journalistic malpractice ... If Duran shows he can hit advanced pitching, he could give the Red Sox an outfield option at some point in 2020. That would make it easier to deal Andrew Benintendi, Mookie Betts or Jackie Bradley Jr. this winter. It really proves the opposite of what it intends. That Duran is the proposed replacement for one of the current OFs just goes to show how little flexibility the Red Sox actually have to trade any of them. I like Duran, he was a sharp pick by the Red Sox, but even an optimistic projection for the guy is that he'll be a nice fourth OF in a couple years. They have to either trade one of them or be happy with virtually nothing in return. They do not have the payroll budget to retain all three. JBJ must go this winter. I am not sure Betts should survive the winter either. Build the farm, sign a few mid range guys, and focus on life after the new cba.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Sept 27, 2019 23:40:38 GMT -5
A two tier max salary structure giving the team that has the player under contract the best opportunity to retain the player.
A hard salary cap and a minimum percentage of the gross to the players. This should prevent teams from under spending, and if they do the players would still get the money.
Maximum contract length of 6 years.
A voluntary option contract. Would allow AAAA players out of options to get called up during the season more readily without the team fearing losing the player when the player needs to get sent back down
Expand the big league roster to 26. This should cut down on demotions to rest players
Expand the 40 man roster to 44. Creates more space to manage the roster without minor trades and allows for better flexibility when there are injuries.
The draft order for all teams not in the playoffs is determined by draw and not by record.
Eliminate all differences in amateur signing pools. The last two points take away most reasons for tanking.
Raise all minor league pay scales from AA down by 100%. In exchange all players signing under age 20 would get one more year before becoming rule 5 eligible.
Expand AAA and AA rosters to 26. This helps accommodate the 44 man roster and helps facilitate development of players without overuse
Bonuses related to getting certain honors would be capped but would not count toward the team's salary cap. Honors would include Cy Young, MVP, Batting Champ, All Star Game (only if the player actually plays) etc.
Attack away
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Aug 17, 2019 16:13:24 GMT -5
It's kind of a slam dunk as far as extending JBJ goes. No. The guy's hitting .220 and hasn't even gotten to his 30th birthday yet. It's not going to get better offensively for him as he ages and it's not like defense improves as a player ages. They have plenty of other players to spend money on. The bigger question re: JBJ is whether they trade him this offseason. Doubtful they do, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. CF is likely Duran's come 2021 and Jimenez within a year or two later might be going after that job. Or they get somebody else, but it's highly doubtful you see JBJ in CF come 2021 and beyond. What if they can sign JBJ for like 4/$28 million? We really have no idea what his market is, but at some price point, he's worth keeping without an obvious replacement. The same goes for Porcello. I don't think the team should commit to JBJ for 4 years. There are some internal possibilities for replacement in a year of so. I would rather get someone with a short term money for a year, maybe 2. As for Porcello, I like him, but he has to go.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Aug 12, 2019 23:24:56 GMT -5
With McGrath, there's nothing to lose except baseball games, but in general they don't just call up guys because they've given up trying to win but calling up players they don't think are good. It'd be fun if they called him up, for sure, but if they don't think he's good, running him out there to put up like a 12.00 ERA and face the comments-section meatheads might not be the best idea. Don't need the Tony Mazz's of the world being all "look, another example of how the Red Sox don't develop pitching" at the kid. The downside to calling up Dalbec and/or Chatham is that they aren't ready and get overmatched and develop bad habits based on that. Or a specific flaw gets exposed that hurts their value as a potential trade chip. Less worried about that with Dalbec, though letting him put up inflated numbers with the juiced ball against Triple-A pitchers while working through any potential adjustments has some value as well. In September I might bring Dalbec up since the alternative will be just ending his season. Chatham isn't MLB ready and "see how their skills play at the major league level" for a player who is talented but whose development isn't there yet is self-defeating. Plenty of spots on the 40 to open up. Get rid of Cashner before he hits his innings vesting. Wright may be heading to the 60. McGrath is a FA at year end, so if he is a bust you let him go.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Aug 11, 2019 13:43:00 GMT -5
Blast away, because I know many of you will, but Daniel McGrath is pitching very well in Portland, is a free agent at the end of the season, and cannot be worse than Cashner at this point. Why not DFA Cashner and see what this guy can do at this level? This is not the Sox year. The team should be looking at what some of their guys can do at higher levels.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Aug 11, 2019 9:38:41 GMT -5
Agree with UMass, if 10/350 doesn't get him to bite (assuming we'd even offer that) then you have to consider bringing back talent to replace Mookie. If he is 100% determined to hit free agency, there's nothing that says you can't trade him this winter and then still make that same mega-offer the following year. Yeah you risk him signing an extension with the new team but if he does that when he wouldn't with us then we were losing him anyways. Bottom line, make your best offer this winter. My preference is to see Mookie stay but it's inept management to let a scenario play out where he walks and all you get is draft pick compensation.Not if you're trying to win a World Series, which should 100% be the goal in 2020. I guess we're all bored with that and we just want to root for payroll efficiency now. Not bored. I just want the team to be good past 2020.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Aug 10, 2019 18:47:13 GMT -5
The team cannot sign Betts, Devers, Benintendi, and extend JD. Who do you want to let go? Devers and Beni impress me to be a couple guys that want to play in Boston. JD would likely extend here without testing the market if the team wants him. Betts, while an amazing player, seems to be a mercenary. Would drop everything for another million. With that attitude as painful as it is, he appears to be the best guy to trade away. 2020 could/should feature an outfield without Betts or JBJ. And how would you know that? How do you know that Devers and Benintendi "want to play in Boston"? Honestly, they do need money set aside to extend Devers, but by time they need it Price should be gone. If somebody has to go Benintendi would be the most replaceable - unless he takes the next big step up which he has yet to do (doesn't mean he won't). But again, what indications do you actually have that either Devers and Benintendi want to take a discount? Plus how do you know that if Boston is right there with the other best offers that Betts will choose the other offer? He's not going to take some hometown discount. He knew he was worth more than 8 years $200 million and he's right. I'm not saying for sure Betts won't leave, but I am saying that there's no evidence that Benintendi or Devers are going to stay with the Red Sox for a hometown discount the way that Bogaerts did (and arguably Sale to some extent). The team is already maxxed on payroll. Betts at 200 for 8 is unlikely. Too many teams offering longer. I am not comfortable at 40 million a year to ONE guy. Cannot build a full team when you do that unless you have a ton of young guys. Betts for 40 means good bye to others (Devers et al) and not much money for free agents.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Aug 10, 2019 16:06:57 GMT -5
The team cannot sign Betts, Devers, Benintendi, and extend JD. Who do you want to let go? Devers and Beni impress me to be a couple guys that want to play in Boston. JD would likely extend here without testing the market if the team wants him. Betts, while an amazing player, seems to be a mercenary. Would drop everything for another million. With that attitude as painful as it is, he appears to be the best guy to trade away. 2020 could/should feature an outfield without Betts or JBJ.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Aug 9, 2019 20:10:22 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more. Not sure my why isn't Wally on the list comment was deleted by the mods but it's pretty much an equivalent question. This is the most successful baseball team of the millennium. Can we be any more spoiled ? Didn't stop them from firing Farrell, Francona, "trading" Theo and essentially replacing Cherington. Theo quit mid contract. Francona was going through a tough patch in his life and lost control of the team. I thought Farrell was escorted out a bit prematurely.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Aug 7, 2019 23:43:51 GMT -5
He’s a free agent after this season. Yet there are others listed on 2020 potential rosters who will also be free agents. They are shown as “potential acquisitions”. At any rate, Danny deserves to be offered a contract based on this year’s performance alone. Late comer to the party. Maybe the drop Cashner and give this free agent a shot for the last 6 or 7 weeks of the season and see if he has the chance to translate. He is a hot arm if nothing else. Nothing really to lose at this point
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Aug 7, 2019 20:46:04 GMT -5
Uh, you just see him throw out Billy Hamilton at third? I didn't, but he's still a disappointment. He can make spectacular plays, but in a juiced-ball era where offense is through the roof he's having his worst offensive year. He's also a tad overrated on defense. And he is a year away from his FA year. No chance the Sox sign him for 15 million plus. May as well get something in return for him now.
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Aug 3, 2019 14:02:38 GMT -5
Well that lowers Leon's already low caughtstealing% Centeno, Hernandez or Nunez. They cannot all be worse
|
|
|
Post by beavertontim on Aug 3, 2019 13:29:24 GMT -5
And now we are faced with another long bullpen day. It is not and has not been the bullpen all year. The starters cannot pitch 6 quality innings
|
|