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 soxjim on Jan 7, 2019 23:24:30 GMT -5
If we lived close to one another and were friends I'd bet you a lot of money if the Sox would go under. The fact is the odogers and Yanks have gone under the cap for a reaosn just as every team has. Every team does it. I find it hard to believe only our team will now spend more. The Yankees were a team that out spent other teams for a long time. Then George died, their team got old and ineffective they didn’t have young player ready so they took the opportunity to drop pay roll like they should. What we don’t know yet is if Hal is going to turn cheap on his fan base. It would be great if he did. When the Sox team gets old and ineffective that’s when they should and as a fan to expect anything different for a team raking in the profits is baffling to me. “Other teams do it so we should to” is poppycock. We can agree to disagree. Anyways when you own a stock and everyone gets out and you;re the last man standing with that stock, more than likely the others that told you to get out weren't telling you a poppycock story.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 8, 2019 0:33:23 GMT -5
Jim is right, it's not just about money it's about the talent teams needs to prosper. I don't see them signing both players, it just doesn't make much sense. Why spend 14% of the team's payroll on a few wins? That's a lousy business model. It's high-risk and low reward. So we are taking WAR literally again? Also, you guys are subscribing to an artificial cap that doesn’t exist. More power to you but it’s not a real line. The Red Sox are in no danger of losing money - none. This is not the same as throwing bad money at bad contracts. If you want to argue Ottavino or Kimbrel are going to be overpaid on their contracts then fine just don’t give me the tax line nonsense. We are giving the team a BS excuse. Would you rather we talk about our perceptions of players instead? Mine fail me all the time, and I'll bet yours don't always do you right either. As I've said in other posts, if we don't have some way to talk about player value, then there's nothing to talk about. My own bias: the marketplace for relievers is the flavor du jour. There's not doubt they're valuable, there just not as valuable as some believe. The Sox certainly have the money, but they're in danger of losing access to talent because of their spending. They will not be able to sign all the players on the current roster, that's a given. If they also keep dropping back in the draft they'll have holes in that roster they can't fill in-house. They'll be relegated to rummaging through the free-agent class year after year. That's expensive, and players on the downside of the aging curve - most of them but not all of them - can fade quickly enough that you're left with some who are no longer worth what you're paying them. At that point, you put up these signs in the office: The first rule when you're in a hole is to stop digging. I'd rather they not go there.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 8, 2019 0:42:06 GMT -5
Regardless, haven't we established that older declining players are not the way to build championship teams anymore? You need the next great young players more than the former young players who are declining. Spending money is not equal to having a good team under this current CBA. They may coincide at times, but it's no longer possible to buy championships with money. I haven't seen a championship building model that can last indefinitely without rebuilding, so it's probably a matter of when, not if. Having the 29th to 30th best farm system isn't going to help. Hopefully they get lucky with drafting and player development and resist the urge to trade which would help quite a bit. Of course you have to rebuild sometime but that’s not necessary now. People are concerns about the tax line in future years not having an old declining team. If you sign Ottavino and/or Kimbrel to 3 and 4 year deals respectively there’s a good chance that if you need to rebuild in 2 years you have 2 huge trade chips to get prospects for. We aren’t talking 5 + year deals for these guys. I advocated signing 2 or even 3 bigger-name guys (Soria, Robertson, Britton/Ottavino) earlier this offseason, for exactly that reason. But I also thought it would really only make sense if at least two were on shorter deals, because longer terms (3+ yr) at big $ (9-14M AAV depending on the player) scare off smaller markets, limiting trade partners and driving down return. Relievers are so risky that I think an acquiring team finds being on the hook for 0.4-1.4 years a lot more palatable than 2.4+ (or $24M roughly). At that cost, a team probably prefers the option to move on or extend, depending on performance. I think Ottavino at 33 will get (and deserves) three years, but that comes with substantial risk given his short track record and age. He’s relatively high risk to become an albatross, even if his upside is terrific. And Kimbrel will probably get 4 years (and also probably deserves it), but his postseason history and spotty recent performance (relative to his HOF-caliber youth) mean he’s a tougher sell as an elite- or near-elite guy going forward...meaning teams are going to be reticent to take on his deal in years one or two; the risk he declines gets higher down the road, too. I do think there’s a path there to dramatically improving the ‘19 ‘pen while potentially getting a solid to excellent prospect return, but it’s risky. That said, if they can get a guy like Ryan Madson (who still throws gas and has three pitches, but was all out of sorts last year) on a cheap 1-year or 2-year deal, I’d like it. As long as AAV is low (say, $5-6M or less), he would help them now, provide depth and possibly performance, and be easy to unload. Maybe the team, with Bannister, Levangie, et al could sort him or Cody Allen out. Allen has some concerns too obviously but he’s been very effective before. I think this Sox team/organization, as constructed, is probably in a really good place to take some chances on reclamation and major-league development projects, given their relief prospects, coaching/managing (eg, the rover usage), and overall strength of the MLB roster. They proved that OK is good enough (C, bullpen last year) provided you have backup (deep offense to mask poor C hitting, Brasier development, rover use). I’m not grossly opposed to Ottavino or Kimbrel, but it’d have to be pretty favorable terms. If the Sox could swing a couple of relative bargain deals, it’d be good as long as they could get out from underneath them down the road, and terrific if they could replenish the farm some.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 8, 2019 3:03:15 GMT -5
So we are taking WAR literally again? Also, you guys are subscribing to an artificial cap that doesn’t exist. More power to you but it’s not a real line. The Red Sox are in no danger of losing money - none. This is not the same as throwing bad money at bad contracts. If you want to argue Ottavino or Kimbrel are going to be overpaid on their contracts then fine just don’t give me the tax line nonsense. We are giving the team a BS excuse. Would you rather we talk about our perceptions of players instead? Mine fail me all the time, and I'll bet yours don't always do you right either. As I've said in other posts, if we don't have some way to talk about player value, then there's nothing to talk about. My own bias: the marketplace for relievers is the flavor du jour. There's not doubt they're valuable, there just not as valuable as some believe. The Sox certainly have the money, but they're in danger of losing access to talent because of their spending. They will not be able to sign all the players on the current roster, that's a given. If they also keep dropping back in the draft they'll have holes in that roster they can't fill in-house. They'll be relegated to rummaging through the free-agent class year after year. That's expensive, and players on the downside of the aging curve - most of them but not all of them - can fade quickly enough that you're left with some who are no longer worth what you're paying them. At that point, you put up these signs in the office: The first rule when you're in a hole is to stop digging. I'd rather they not go there. I didn’t say don’t talk about value; in fact I said the opposite. You were just translating WAR to mean literal wins. If you think no reliever is worth their free agent contract then that’s your prerogative.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 8, 2019 3:21:10 GMT -5
Im not going to argue against people that want their owners to spend less and pocket more money to help other teams and keep some sort of nostalgia or trying to hang on to us some how being an underdog.
Part of my motivation for signing Ottavino and Kimbrel (disclaimer: assuming the deals are reasonable which the free agent deals thus far seem to have been) is the fact they have a POTENTIAL double value. They help you next year (and maybe all their years) to try and repeat, but they can also be valuable trade chips for restocking the lousy system. They also help you avoid having to trade from that system. We saw the Yankees use trades to restock their system. Is there some risk to this? Sure, but it’s minimal and can pay huge dividends. Losing 10 spots in the draft doesn’t hurt them all that much, the fact they can’t outspend teams any more in the draft hurts them a lot tho. They need to get creative to start replenishing that talent using their financial advantage. I don’t want them having to trade for a high end reliever because they’ve left a hole.
If they are able to get Ottavino for something like a 3 year deal where the 2nd is a team/vesting option that looks like this:
2019: 15 2020: 13.5 2021: 11.5
And if Kimbrel drops to the 4/60 -70 range, that’s also likely tradable in a couple years.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 8, 2019 3:53:45 GMT -5
Im not going to argue against people that want their owners to spend less and pocket more money to help other teams and keep some sort of nostalgia or trying to hang on to us some how being an underdog. Part of my motivation for signing Ottavino and Kimbrel (disclaimer: assuming the deals are reasonable which the free agent deals thus far seem to have been) is the fact they have a POTENTIAL double value. They help you next year (and maybe all their years) to try and repeat, but they can also be valuable trade chips for restocking the lousy system. They also help you avoid having to trade from that system. We saw the Yankees use trades to restock their system. Is there some risk to this? Sure, but it’s minimal and can pay huge dividends. Losing 10 spots in the draft doesn’t hurt them all that much, the fact they can’t outspend teams any more in the draft hurts them a lot tho. They need to get creative to start replenishing that talent using their financial advantage. I don’t want them having to trade for a high end reliever because they’ve left a hole. If they are able to get Ottavino for something like a 3 year deal where the 2nd is a team/vesting option that looks like this: 2019: 15 2020: 13.5 2021: 11.5 And if Kimbrel drops to the 4/60 -70 range, that’s also likely tradable in a couple years. In general. I don't disagree, at least to the point where we are clear favorites. The fly in the ointment is that we have 4 players likely to test the market, Sale, Porcello, Bogaerts and JDM, who should get a qualifying offer. 4th round picks would suck for any or all of them.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 8, 2019 4:42:46 GMT -5
That may cost you a few wins in the beginning of 2019 in a year where you're going for it all again. There were only 2 teams in the American league with a record over .500 that didn't make the playoffs and one of those teams is in a bit of a tear down this offseason. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but I think the Red Sox have a pretty clear path to the playoffs on paper with or without another reliever. Playoffs? Probably with a healthy team, especially Chris Sale, who is questionable after going down for most of the end of the second half. If they don't get him back and healthy, then they're probably a wild card team no matter what they do. The division might be up for grabs if you don't get one more impact arm to at least replace Kimbrel. Both the Rays and Yankees improved this off-season. It's risky in terms of winning if you don't get someone else. You need the division because of the wild card game. I love me some Feltman, Lakins, and Hernandez, but I'd hate to depend on at least 2 to end the year. Sure you can always get a guy at the deadline, but you might have cost yourself 2-5 real wins in the process because your bullpen couldn't hold down leads earlier in the season.
|
|
|
Post by sparkygian on Jan 8, 2019 5:10:17 GMT -5
In general. I don't disagree, at least to the point where we are clear favorites. The fly in the ointment is that we have 4 players likely to test the market, Sale, Porcello, Bogaerts and JDM, who should get a qualifying offer. 4th round picks would suck for any or all of them. I agree that the salary cap should not be a huge limiting factor for acquiring/keeping talent, IF the team is widely considered to be a top contender for the World Series title. Nowadays it seems the window for teams being W.S. contenders is typically very small. Dynasties are a thing of the past, perhaps. I thought for sure the Cubs were going to be repeat W.S. contenders after they won it all. They seemed to be perfectly positioned to repeat, however they've only seemed to decline over last few years. Perhaps Houston could be a real dynasty, especially as their farm system is pretty loaded, in addition to their young roster. My point I'm making is that going past the cap significantly gets uber expensive, and if the team isn't a W.S. contender it doesn't make sense at all to keep giving away cash and draft positions. If the Sox were in last place at the end of the 2020 season -- or hell, even the 2019 system -- I don't think many would be so incredibly shocked by that nowadays. I do feel like the bullpen for the Sox is such an enigma, which I think is a reflection of the talent on it. The performance of the bullpen would be top - 5 for a month or two, and then the worst in the league, practically, for a month or so. That's a reflection of players like J. Kelly, Barnes, and even Kimbrel, which is why I would bet that most Sox fans, and I argue the front office too, would feel more comfortable with some proven, consistent, late-inning bullpen help, if it is affordable, or youthful talent that the league hasn't figured out yet. Otherwise gambling on players like Brasier is a good option when it works. Hell, even the A's Treinen wasn't considered elite, but the frugal A's traded for him and now he's top 3 reliever, imo. It sucks to shell out a bunch of cash and go over the cap to sign All Star free agent relievers like Melancon, Davis, and Holland for example and watch them under perform, creating a hole on the team that needs to be filled if the team is playoff bound, which means giving up prospects at the deadline. Doubly expensive. No guarantee that going over cap works, as we all know.
|
|
|
Post by sparkygian on Jan 8, 2019 5:17:13 GMT -5
Another thing to consider, imo, is the perspective of whoever's in charge of personnel. I'm guessing that DD is still smarting after giving an exorbitant contract to re-sign Cabrera, which has really hamstrung the Tigers, and probably was a big reason why he chose not to keep Scherzer. Losing Scherzer is perhaps part of the reason why DD didn't seem to blink when he decided to give out an enormous contract to get Price, which I feel has hamstrung the Red Sox. DD has a track record of giving up cheap, young talent to go get the proven players, and so his teams seem to be pretty good, but typically juggling their salary cap commitment.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 8, 2019 8:38:37 GMT -5
Im not going to argue against people that want their owners to spend less and pocket more money to help other teams and keep some sort of nostalgia or trying to hang on to us some how being an underdog. If you think I'm in that boat, you're wrong. I want them to try to extend just about everyone. What I don't want is for them to continue to waste money in free agency, like every team that is heavily involved in free agency ends up doing. I don't want that to be the model moving forward. Filling every single hole with free agents is not a long-term winning strategy and that's close to where they'll find themselves starting next offseason. That doesn't mean that I want the owners to make more money so I'd appreciate not basically being called stupid.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 8, 2019 9:21:39 GMT -5
Im not going to argue against people that want their owners to spend less and pocket more money to help other teams and keep some sort of nostalgia or trying to hang on to us some how being an underdog. Part of my motivation for signing Ottavino and Kimbrel (disclaimer: assuming the deals are reasonable which the free agent deals thus far seem to have been) is the fact they have a POTENTIAL double value. They help you next year (and maybe all their years) to try and repeat, but they can also be valuable trade chips for restocking the lousy system. They also help you avoid having to trade from that system. We saw the Yankees use trades to restock their system. Is there some risk to this? Sure, but it’s minimal and can pay huge dividends. Losing 10 spots in the draft doesn’t hurt them all that much, the fact they can’t outspend teams any more in the draft hurts them a lot tho. They need to get creative to start replenishing that talent using their financial advantage. I don’t want them having to trade for a high end reliever because they’ve left a hole. If they are able to get Ottavino for something like a 3 year deal where the 2nd is a team/vesting option that looks like this: 2019: 15 2020: 13.5 2021: 11.5 And if Kimbrel drops to the 4/60 -70 range, that’s also likely tradable in a couple years. In general. I don't disagree, at least to the point where we are clear favorites. The fly in the ointment is that we have 4 players likely to test the market, Sale, Porcello, Bogaerts and JDM, who should get a qualifying offer. 4th round picks would suck for any or all of them. Doesn’t their Comp get determined off of this years payroll regardless?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 8, 2019 9:37:17 GMT -5
Im not going to argue against people that want their owners to spend less and pocket more money to help other teams and keep some sort of nostalgia or trying to hang on to us some how being an underdog. If you think I'm in that boat, you're wrong. I want them to try to extend just about everyone. What I don't want is for them to continue to waste money in free agency, like every team that is heavily involved in free agency ends up doing. I don't want that to be the model moving forward. Filling every single hole with free agents is not a long-term winning strategy and that's close to where they'll find themselves starting next offseason. That doesn't mean that I want the owners to make more money so I'd appreciate not basically being called stupid. Couldn’t agree more but right now they have little choice and a really good squad so the timing is wrong for a pullback/reset; This isn’t an “old” team that you need to turn over. It will be in a few years but you need to spend to buy yourself time to rebuild the system to turn things over. They have a TERRIBLE system. The only silver lining is they do have a bunch of guys who have good tools that could jump way up the prospect ranks but those guys would more be on a 3 or so year time frame which is when they can look to be adding some home grown talent again. Besides guys on the fringe or some bullpen arms.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Jan 8, 2019 10:46:51 GMT -5
Im not going to argue against people that want their owners to spend less and pocket more money to help other teams and keep some sort of nostalgia or trying to hang on to us some how being an underdog. Part of my motivation for signing Ottavino and Kimbrel (disclaimer: assuming the deals are reasonable which the free agent deals thus far seem to have been) is the fact they have a POTENTIAL double value. They help you next year (and maybe all their years) to try and repeat, but they can also be valuable trade chips for restocking the lousy system. They also help you avoid having to trade from that system. We saw the Yankees use trades to restock their system. Is there some risk to this? Sure, but it’s minimal and can pay huge dividends. Losing 10 spots in the draft doesn’t hurt them all that much, the fact they can’t outspend teams any more in the draft hurts them a lot tho. They need to get creative to start replenishing that talent using their financial advantage. I don’t want them having to trade for a high end reliever because they’ve left a hole. If they are able to get Ottavino for something like a 3 year deal where the 2nd is a team/vesting option that looks like this: 2019: 15 2020: 13.5 2021: 11.5 And if Kimbrel drops to the 4/60 -70 range, that’s also likely tradable in a couple years. In general. I don't disagree, at least to the point where we are clear favorites. The fly in the ointment is that we have 4 players likely to test the market, Sale, Porcello, Bogaerts and JDM, who should get a qualifying offer. 4th round picks would suck for any or all of them. I’ve seen you post this a few times, just wanna clarify. Under the new CBA, only revenue sharing recipients get 1st round picks for QO signees. The Sox could get 2nd round picks, but only if they don’t go over the luxury tax at all. Since they’re certain to go past $206M this year, they’re going to be 4th round picks regardless. Unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 8, 2019 11:23:31 GMT -5
In general. I don't disagree, at least to the point where we are clear favorites. The fly in the ointment is that we have 4 players likely to test the market, Sale, Porcello, Bogaerts and JDM, who should get a qualifying offer. 4th round picks would suck for any or all of them. I’ve seen you post this a few times, just wanna clarify. Under the new CBA, only revenue sharing recipients get 1st round picks for QO signees. The Sox could get 2nd round picks, but only if they don’t go over the luxury tax at all. Since they’re certain to go past $206M this year, they’re going to be 4th round picks regardless. Unfortunately. I think thats what he is saying.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 8, 2019 14:24:49 GMT -5
The whole problem with people using that luxary tax line is that it doesn't increase like our revenue does. People are talking about us being maxed out. Have you looked at how our revenue is growing? How in the world is this team going to get maxed out? You only buy that if you believe they have to reset the tax and that the luxury line is like a hard cap every three years. If you believe that, you are rooting for the Billionaires.
The idea that we have no farm system is comical. Like Theo used to say the farm system is to supplement the major league team. Yet a bunch of people now think you need to build your whole team from the farm system. Just like always there are a million ways to build teams. I certainly see enough talent that we can supplement our team from our system.
The idea that PEDs means all free agents are bad is comical. It just means you back to the old school model. In that model there were tons of players that did well as they got older. It just means you need a smart GM that doesn't give out deals like the ones Sandoval and Ramirez got. Nevermind guys like Betts and Bogaerts are going to be crazy young. Those deals might turn bad, but it should take years and years.
I truly believe everyone acting like we have to reset is rooting for the Billionaires! It should be more like lets see what happens. Maybe after next year that makes sense, maybe it doesn't. Maybe we have a down year, maybe Sale isn't the same, maybe Bogaerts reverts to his old self, maybe Martinez gets injured, who knows. I can certainly see a path were it makes sense. At the same time I certainly see a path were it makes sense not to reset either.
The funny thing about the MLB draft along with international players is that a good GM can rebuild the system without tanking and needing high picks. As long as they are spending a lot of money on the draft, which they are. As long as they are trading for extra international money, which they are, we are rebuilding our farm system. We can't get two extra first or even a first for letting QO free agent leave. We can only get second round picks if we get under the tax line under this system. So those rebuild or bidge years don't make as much sense as the once did. For example I'd want Kimbrel gone if we could still get two first round picks for him leaving. The current system it seems to make more sense to go for it. Then do a total rebuild when it implodes. Because without all those first round picks, trades are now the best way to rebuild. So like Telson and RJP have talked about signing guys you can later trade when you want to drop below the tax makes sense. The idea of front loading contracts to increase trade value later on, makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 8, 2019 18:53:09 GMT -5
MLB payrolls dropped for first time since 2010, when they zig then you zag. Take advantage of teams surprising player contracts. 💪🏽💵
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 9, 2019 0:46:41 GMT -5
The reliever options are getting really slim. Kimbrell, Ottavino, Herrera, Allen and Holland. Clearly the pickings are getting really slim, as Ottavino is not a closer, more like a 7th inning guy. Herrera is coming off an injury and he likely will not be able to pitch until May/June. Allen lost the Indians' closer role last year as he was pretty bad and Holland is more of a 6th or 7th inning pitcher. The Red Sox may have to default to Kimbrell which is likely going to cost them more in terms of years and money than the likes of Robertson, Britton, Familia, Soria, etc. Brad Brach could be a good & significantly cheaper signing for 1 or 2 years. He’s backed up a bit the last 2 years but he’s only 33 and pitching on a team that awful has to be tough. I think you’re right...he’d be a good target on the right 1-2-yr (or 3-yr vesting option) deal.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 9, 2019 1:01:46 GMT -5
The whole problem with people using that luxary tax line is that it doesn't increase like our revenue does. People are talking about us being maxed out. Have you looked at how our revenue is growing? How in the world is this team going to get maxed out? You only buy that if you believe they have to reset the tax and that the luxury line is like a hard cap every three years. If you believe that, you are rooting for the Billionaires. The idea that we have no farm system is comical. Like Theo used to say the farm system is to supplement the major league team. Yet a bunch of people now think you need to build your whole team from the farm system. Just like always there are a million ways to build teams. I certainly see enough talent that we can supplement our team from our system. The idea that PEDs means all free agents are bad is comical. It just means you back to the old school model. In that model there were tons of players that did well as they got older. It just means you need a smart GM that doesn't give out deals like the ones Sandoval and Ramirez got. Nevermind guys like Betts and Bogaerts are going to be crazy young. Those deals might turn bad, but it should take years and years. I truly believe everyone acting like we have to reset is rooting for the Billionaires! It should be more like lets see what happens. Maybe after next year that makes sense, maybe it doesn't. Maybe we have a down year, maybe Sale isn't the same, maybe Bogaerts reverts to his old self, maybe Martinez gets injured, who knows. I can certainly see a path were it makes sense. At the same time I certainly see a path were it makes sense not to reset either. The funny thing about the MLB draft along with international players is that a good GM can rebuild the system without tanking and needing high picks. As long as they are spending a lot of money on the draft, which they are. As long as they are trading for extra international money, which they are, we are rebuilding our farm system. We can't get two extra first or even a first for letting QO free agent leave. We can only get second round picks if we get under the tax line under this system. So those rebuild or bidge years don't make as much sense as the once did. For example I'd want Kimbrel gone if we could still get two first round picks for him leaving. The current system it seems to make more sense to go for it. Then do a total rebuild when it implodes. Because without all those first round picks, trades are now the best way to rebuild. So like Telson and RJP have talked about signing guys you can later trade when you want to drop below the tax makes sense. The idea of front loading contracts to increase trade value later on, makes a lot of sense. I really think their IFA approach this year was a terrific start too...identifying a lot of good-not-great talent in the low-6-figure range and going volume. At 16, they’re just not nearly as “set” in expectations as even HS seniors and certainly not college jrs. The expenditures on high-end guys turn out a lot of Maitans, and I think at that age, volume is the right approach. I don’t have specific data, but I’d absolutely be willing to wager that 5 guys at 300K probably turns out better talent in five years than one at 1.5M. They had a nice draft approach, too. I’d like to see them avoid talent-acquisition penalties as much as possible, and that’s really my main issue with going over-cap. I just want to see them avoid using $ alone to gloss over tough personnel decisions. I don’t fundamentally have an issue with spending, provided it’s done wisely. If they really think Mookie, Bogey, Beni, Devers, JBJ, Sale, etc look to be solid long-term investments, by all means keep the gang together. My inclination is to believe that most, maybe all (pending JBJ’s swing change results and Devers’s 2019 development) *are*. Just have a couple-five backup plans.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 9, 2019 1:26:42 GMT -5
Im not going to argue against people that want their owners to spend less and pocket more money to help other teams and keep some sort of nostalgia or trying to hang on to us some how being an underdog. If you think I'm in that boat, you're wrong. I want them to try to extend just about everyone. What I don't want is for them to continue to waste money in free agency, like every team that is heavily involved in free agency ends up doing. I don't want that to be the model moving forward. Filling every single hole with free agents is not a long-term winning strategy and that's close to where they'll find themselves starting next offseason. That doesn't mean that I want the owners to make more money so I'd appreciate not basically being called stupid. I'm with you. I don't get where rip or umass are coming from in regard to "want owners to spend less" or "want billionaires to make more" etc. Hey it's no skin off my back. If sox don't care about 2020 then sign me up for Kimbrel. Do the old Yankee thing and just outbid the last bidder. And Ottavino would be a possibility in addition to Kimbrel. If you don't get him - then Pomeranz over Brian Johnson. (I know many are against Pomeranz and I am too if Sox have a 2020 budget to go under and I expect he'll want decent money beyond 2020). If money isn't that big of a deal and we heard Cora say he is going to rest his starters -- that means he's going to actively use his 6th and maybe 7th starters (maybe as bullpen too). Thus he'll get his innings and you can keep him stretched as a 5 inning starter. He needs rest too. It' not liek every 5th day you need to pitch him. The thing is he is one yer removed from being a number 2 starter on a division championship team. That;s better than Brian Johnson. and as Cora said at end of last year his fastball was hitting 93 or 94 which was what they wanted. And if you rest starters who says they can't pitch 3 innings as a rest from time to time then have Pomeranz pitch from bullpen on some occasions from 4th inning -7 or 4-8? The bullpen was also worn down a bit too last year. In this scenario Pomeranz rests our 6th inning, 7th inning and maybe 8th inning relievers. If sox don't care about the budget - this is an alternative. And to further that ---was it you who said you'd like to see Sox trade Swihart? Well now if Sox don't care about payroll that much Swihart and Johnson as a combo might get you a good reliever or another valued infielder in case Pedroia turns into a pumpkin. I see the Sox getting under for 2020. But if they aren't concerned that's fine too. I think long term they lose too much though and the owner just like any owner cares about money. what us fans think is enough I can't say owner thinks the same. I highly doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 9, 2019 7:35:35 GMT -5
www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2018/06/18/the-boston-red-sox-should-be-worth-at-least-3-billion-by-the-end-of-this-season/#393fa68d1937Look at the revenue chart and you get an idea of why some of us think automatic resets are funny. Nevermind NESN which our owner owns 80% of had 180 million in income in 2017 and last season they had a rating increase of 26% in one year. That is not money that is included in the Red Sox revenue, that is on top of it. The increase in revenue also raised the value of the team by 200 to 300 million depending on who you believe in one year. Our owner makes more money off of NESN than the Red Sox and that money depends on how the Red Sox perform. Example in 2014 a last place finish caused NESNs numbers to tank by 34%. So not only do we have the payroll for the Red Sox to turn a big profit on a 250 million payroll. Their operating costs are around 80 million for example. It just makes sense if the 2019 team is one of the best in Baseball to spend the money,because it will increase viewership and profits at NESN. While also increasing the teams value. If your worried about our owner making money you ride out this wave! Saving 40 million on payroll could cost them a 100 million in NESN income if the team tanks. Nevermind they will likely be around 600 million in revenue in 4-5 years, giving them the ability to spend more while making more money. I'm all for owners making money. This is a business, yet its also fairly standard practice in sports that the teams spend around 50% on the players. Saying we should be around 250 million and going up as revenue does isn't even a true 50% due to NESN. Yet I won't argue against that. Yet arguing that we have to reset the tax in 2020 and be around 200 million is crazy. Our revenue will be around 550 million at that point. They should be increasing spending, not lowering it. Baseball isn't like Basketball. The tax is a lot lower and the Red Sox have to pay it to even spend 50%, while the regular salary cap in Basketball automatically sets it. The current system was designed so teams like the Red Sox pay the tax every year. The higher revenue teams not doing that are just being cheap and it's going to result in a big time labor war. RJP is 100% right, there was never a better time to spend money than right now. The Red Sox just spending what they should gives us a big advantage.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 9, 2019 8:51:09 GMT -5
www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2018/06/18/the-boston-red-sox-should-be-worth-at-least-3-billion-by-the-end-of-this-season/#393fa68d1937Look at the revenue chart and you get an idea of why some of us think automatic resets are funny. Nevermind NESN which our owner owns 80% of had 180 million in income in 2017 and last season they had a rating increase of 26% in one year. That is not money that is included in the Red Sox revenue, that is on top of it. The increase in revenue also raised the value of the team by 200 to 300 million depending on who you believe in one year. Our owner makes more money off of NESN than the Red Sox and that money depends on how the Red Sox perform. Example in 2014 a last place finish caused NESNs numbers to tank by 34%. So not only do we have the payroll for the Red Sox to turn a big profit on a 250 million payroll. Their operating costs are around 80 million for example. It just makes sense if the 2019 team is one of the best in Baseball to spend the money,because it will increase viewership and profits at NESN. While also increasing the teams value. If your worried about our owner making money you ride out this wave! Saving 40 million on payroll could cost them a 100 million in NESN income if the team tanks. Nevermind they will likely be around 600 million in revenue in 4-5 years, giving them the ability to spend more while making more money. I'm all for owners making money. This is a business, yet its also fairly standard practice in sports that the teams spend around 50% on the players. Saying we should be around 250 million and going up as revenue does isn't even a true 50% due to NESN. Yet I won't argue against that. Yet arguing that we have to reset the tax in 2020 and be around 200 million is crazy. Our revenue will be around 550 million at that point. They should be increasing spending, not lowering it. Baseball isn't like Basketball. The tax is a lot lower and the Red Sox have to pay it to even spend 50%, while the regular salary cap in Basketball automatically sets it. The current system was designed so teams like the Red Sox pay the tax every year. The higher revenue teams not doing that are just being cheap and it's going to result in a big time labor war. RJP is 100% right, there was never a better time to spend money than right now. The Red Sox just spending what they should gives us a big advantage. So this proves that free agency is a great investment now? Do you notice who the best players in baseball are today? Literally NO ONE is saying that they don't want John Henry to spend more money. Everyone is saying that the team shouldn't be stupid with money because that does get the team into a mess that takes awhile to get out of. Pablo Sandoval and his negative 2 wins over parts of three seasons that he had for us before he was finally dumped says hi. Are you happy that John Henry wasted money on that? I'm not because of baseball reasons. In the end, free agency is a losing game. There are way too many Sandovals, Hanleys, Beckets, and Crawfords than there are reasonable contracts that aren't regretted in the end. If I expanded to all teams, I could come up with a huge embarrassing list of terrible, terrible contracts. The problem with these terrible contracts isn't that they cost the owners money as much as it is that it costs the teams who take a long time hoping for the player to recover at all. It's like you people haven't even noticed what has happened in baseball over the last 10 years and still think the Yankees model from the 90s still works. The Red Sox have by far the highest payroll in MLB and you think they're like the Wilpons or something.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 9, 2019 9:32:18 GMT -5
Jimed have you looked at the war list? For example four of the top ten pitchers aren't on rookie level deals. I'm counting 17 pitchers not on rookie deals that had 3 bwar or more. What the heck are you talking about? It's like you never watched David Ortiz.
No this is about everyone thinking we have to reset, not that the value is bad. I've never said sign our guys at all cost. The discussion has always been we can't do this or that because we need to reset the tax. My post just shows that is pure 100% crap. You can certainly debate how big and how long you go on guys, just not that we need to reset at all costs.
Do you think Sale, Bogaerts, Betts, and Martinez are anything like Sandoval? My god you litterally use what is likely the worst deal in the history of the game and act like that is all free agents.
You love to point out our bad contracts, yet overlook Sale, Price, Porcello, Moreland, Martinez, Pearce etc that were all not on rookie deals. Heck Eovaldi was a free agent signing we traded for, Kimbrel was past his rookie years. A massive chunk of maybe the best Red Sox team wasn't young guys on rookie level deals. Yet you act like they all turn into pumkins like Sandoval.
You are litterally arguing that you can't buy championships and they just did!
Edit: It's like you don't realize the way Theo and Ben stocked our farm system can no longer happen. You don't get a ton of high picks for losing free agents, you can't just outspend everyone in the draft or international market. Yet you want to try and do what they did. Much better to ride out great teams till they implode and then do a full on rebuild.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 9, 2019 9:53:42 GMT -5
It's about talent, not money. You can keep saying otherwise all you want and it won't make it true. That's the way the owners structured the CBA. The players didn't get the memo and now they're paying for it. Spend too much money and you get dinged in young talent. That's the linkage. Real simple.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 16,453
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 9, 2019 10:10:39 GMT -5
www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2018/06/18/the-boston-red-sox-should-be-worth-at-least-3-billion-by-the-end-of-this-season/#393fa68d1937Look at the revenue chart and you get an idea of why some of us think automatic resets are funny. Nevermind NESN which our owner owns 80% of had 180 million in income in 2017 and last season they had a rating increase of 26% in one year. That is not money that is included in the Red Sox revenue, that is on top of it. The increase in revenue also raised the value of the team by 200 to 300 million depending on who you believe in one year. Our owner makes more money off of NESN than the Red Sox and that money depends on how the Red Sox perform. Example in 2014 a last place finish caused NESNs numbers to tank by 34%. So not only do we have the payroll for the Red Sox to turn a big profit on a 250 million payroll. Their operating costs are around 80 million for example. It just makes sense if the 2019 team is one of the best in Baseball to spend the money,because it will increase viewership and profits at NESN. While also increasing the teams value. If your worried about our owner making money you ride out this wave! Saving 40 million on payroll could cost them a 100 million in NESN income if the team tanks. Nevermind they will likely be around 600 million in revenue in 4-5 years, giving them the ability to spend more while making more money. I'm all for owners making money. This is a business, yet its also fairly standard practice in sports that the teams spend around 50% on the players. Saying we should be around 250 million and going up as revenue does isn't even a true 50% due to NESN. Yet I won't argue against that. Yet arguing that we have to reset the tax in 2020 and be around 200 million is crazy. Our revenue will be around 550 million at that point. They should be increasing spending, not lowering it. Baseball isn't like Basketball. The tax is a lot lower and the Red Sox have to pay it to even spend 50%, while the regular salary cap in Basketball automatically sets it. The current system was designed so teams like the Red Sox pay the tax every year. The higher revenue teams not doing that are just being cheap and it's going to result in a big time labor war. RJP is 100% right, there was never a better time to spend money than right now. The Red Sox just spending what they should gives us a big advantage. If it makes sense I agree with you both and JimEd on a couple of points. I do believe, as you lay out the case, the Sox most definitely could afford to not worry about the penalties, etc, for going over the luxury tax threshold in 2020. They make money hand over fist, so I'm too not overly worried about what happens to the Sox if they can't get under. JimEd is right that free agency over time is a losing proposition most of the time. I would love Sale, JDM, Xander, Bogaerts, Porcello, and eventually Betts (and if JBJ becomes a more consistent hitter as he was in the 2nd half) and Bradley to stick around when their contracts expire. But the reality is if the Sox did sign all of those guys, while they could afford it, they would be experiencing a bunch of declining performances for big $ come 2022 or 2023 or thereabout - the question would be how many championships between now and then I suppose? So the Sox have to prioritize who they try to sign, which is why Kimbrel is such an interesting test case. I'd be cool with seeing him come back. I don't think he's as bad as he showed in the post-season, but OTOH I don't believe he's the stud he has been. I think we saw a glimpse of Kimbrel's future. The question is when does that future happen. Will it happen all at once if his FB velocity declines too much? Even if Kimbrel drops to the 3 year $40 million range which would be a "bargain" deal for the Sox, that's $13 million less to spend on others to stay under the cap in 2020 if they are going to do it. Thus far I've seen zero evidence that they intend to be over the tax limit in 2020. I guess you could argue that there's been zero evidence they intend to stay under. I think Kimbrel will be an interesting test case for this.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Jan 9, 2019 10:18:00 GMT -5
|
|
|