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 rjp313jr on Jan 9, 2019 10:29:10 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. Ummm what? People literally are saying they don’t want Henry to spend his money by saying they need to reset the tax. We are talking about signing a couple relievers to relatively short deals and for good market value contracts. If people want to say Ottavino and Kimbrel shouldn’t get paid the contracts they are going to get then that’s a different conversation. You guys are taking about the NEED to reset some arbitrary tax line that teams are using as a de facto salary cap to suppress player contracts. We are saying take advantage of the suppressed salaries. Henry will make more money doing so. We’ve never once argued over paying players for the sake of spending money. Your Sandoval, Beckett, Crawford etc contracts are meaningless in this context. They will be meaningful when people (not me) are advocating for paying Xander 25 million over 5 or 6 years next year.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 9, 2019 10:36:42 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. You have to look at each player individually. No of us want to grossly over pay anyone on a long term deal. Unless some drastic changes occur, you’re not going to see me advocating for them to pay Xander huge money long term or Bradley and that won’t be because they have other contracts on the books. It will be because those players will likely get contracts that turn into bad ones and I don’t think they are big enough difference makers now to justify it. This discussion is about relievers right now getting quality market contracts and why they shouldn’t be worried about the tax now or down the line AT THIS TIME (for emphasis not yelling at anyone
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 9, 2019 10:46:21 GMT -5
Again, the loss of access to young talent is what's driving this. Benintendi was their top draft choice. He just played an enormous role on a championship team. He's been paid 2% of his actual worth. It goes on and on.
Not being allowed to draft that quality of player is the game changer. That's how this works. It's not rocket science guys and gals. They can do great legwork scouting younger and lower tier talent but it's more of a crapshoot and teams are using ever more sophisticated evaluations to find the Betts of the world.
Benintendi's trajectory tells you all you need to know. The next one out there would be out of reach if they persist in going over the threshold.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 9, 2019 11:06:58 GMT -5
Again, the loss of access to young talent is what's driving this. Benintendi was their top draft choice. He just played an enormous role on a championship team. He's been paid 2% of his actual worth. It goes on and on. Not being allowed to draft that quality of player is the game changer. That's how this works. It's not rocket science guys and gals. They can do great legwork scouting younger and lower tier talent but it's more of a crapshoot and teams are using ever more sophisticated evaluations to find the Betts of the world. Benintendi's trajectory tells you all you need to know. The next one out there would be out of reach if they persist in going over the threshold. The other piece of it is that to get a player specifically of Benintendi's ilk it took a disappointing 91 loss season. Moving back from say 28th, 29th, or 30th to ten spaces later constantly would likely make things worse when it comes to getting young talent. It's tougher and tougher to find that diamond in the rough the way they found Betts and even then he got paid more as a 5th rounder than I think you can pay these days with the slotting system, so in a way not only are their penalties involved with going over the threshold repeatedly but when it comes to the draft you can be a victim of your own success. Tough to get those #7 picks when you have such a great season. Nobody in their right mind complains about a great season, especially a 2018, but at some point it should catch up when it comes to the drafting of talent unless your evaluators are much more effective and/or luckier. It's a tough needle to thread.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 9, 2019 13:07:14 GMT -5
This was MLB's way of getting parity. I don't like it as I think it takes advantage of young talent. I'd like to see something much fairer all around, reflective of performance on a much quicker basis. This system can be gamed and that's exactly what's happening. The players union needs to wise up and figure out that if they don't all hang together they will hang separately.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 9, 2019 14:31:29 GMT -5
Again, the loss of access to young talent is what's driving this. Benintendi was their top draft choice. He just played an enormous role on a championship team. He's been paid 2% of his actual worth. It goes on and on. Not being allowed to draft that quality of player is the game changer. That's how this works. It's not rocket science guys and gals. They can do great legwork scouting younger and lower tier talent but it's more of a crapshoot and teams are using ever more sophisticated evaluations to find the Betts of the world. Benintendi's trajectory tells you all you need to know. The next one out there would be out of reach if they persist in going over the threshold. So you want them to have a couple last place finishes to get top 10 picks?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 9, 2019 14:47:54 GMT -5
This was MLB's way of getting parity. I don't like it as I think it takes advantage of young talent. I'd like to see something much fairer all around, reflective of performance on a much quicker basis. This system can be gamed and that's exactly what's happening. The players union needs to wise up and figure out that if they don't all hang together they will hang separately. It's certainly an old system - I believe Rick Monday (who went on to destroy the Expos in their biggest game of their history) was the first draft pick of the first draft in 1965. It came about I suppose to "break up" the Yankees, who won year-in and year-out. Give the worst teams the best picks and make the Yankees wait, although as fate would have it the Yankees finally hit the skids in 1965 anyways. What I don't understand and what could have been a simple fix is this "penalizing" of teams who sign free agents now that we know the good and bad of free agency. Sure when free agency was new the concept of penalizing a team for signing a free agent made sense. The Sox certainly paid. I believe they went several years without a 1st round pick, courtesy of signings like Bill Campbell, Mike Torrez, Steve Renko, and Tony Perez. Nobody really considered the two sided coin of free agency back then. Now it's known, so why penalize a team? Why not just give the team losing the free agent the compensation pick without stripping the signing team? I'm sure there is probably a more equitable way. Maybe they do the Ping-Pong ball thing to discourage total tanking? Maybe they should create a salary floor to help that. I mean if you have a luxury tax ceiling that you get penalized for then perhaps they're should be a penalty for being below a salary floor. Coming back to the pen, I'm starting to think that Dombrowski is serious about not bringing back Kimbrel, but it's hard with his way he speaks - we don't anticipate a large expenditure (then a month later - it just so happened we were surprised with this even though we weren't planning......that way he's telling the truth)
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 9, 2019 14:52:02 GMT -5
I know I should be skepical but I really like Ryan Brasier's stuff.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 9, 2019 15:04:31 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,007
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 9, 2019 15:55:11 GMT -5
$18M for one year would not be a big expenditure. It amazes me that folks in the media don't get that the 2020 payroll is the issue.
Hmm ... we can assume that Ottavino would rather close than set up Chapman and Britton. Why is he the one big name who isn't signed other than Kimbrel? (The 4th through 10th-rated relievers are all signed). Why are the Yankees working so hard to try to sign him?
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but the hypothesis that we're either signing Kimbrel to a 1-year deal or Ottavino for 2 plus option, and that the latter deal has been roughly agreed on, explains every known fact.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 3,011
|
Post by mobaz on Jan 9, 2019 16:19:08 GMT -5
$18M for one year would not be a big expenditure. It amazes me that folks in the media don't get that the 2020 payroll is the issue.
Hmm ... we can assume that Ottavino would rather close than set up Chapman and Britton. Why is he the one big name who isn't signed other than Kimbrel? (The 4th through 10th-rated relievers are all signed). Why are the Yankees working so hard to try to sign him?
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but the hypothesis that we're either signing Kimbrel to a 1-year deal or Ottavino for 2 plus option, and that the latter deal has been roughly agreed on, explains every known fact.
I see nothing in this statement from DDo that agrees with your assessment of their interest in Kimbrel (or Ottavino for that matter). Yes, $18M is a large expenditure.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Jan 9, 2019 16:46:38 GMT -5
Until Ottavino, Kimbrel, and maybe Cody Allen all sign with someone else, I still find it difficult to believe that the Sox won't grab one of the relievers on the market. It's clear that the strategy is at minimum "wait and see," but again, it would be bizarre for them to pretty much not replace the closer and the #3/#4 pitcher in the pen when all it's going to cost is $
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,007
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 9, 2019 18:41:41 GMT -5
$18M for one year would not be a big expenditure. It amazes me that folks in the media don't get that the 2020 payroll is the issue.
Hmm ... we can assume that Ottavino would rather close than set up Chapman and Britton. Why is he the one big name who isn't signed other than Kimbrel? (The 4th through 10th-rated relievers are all signed). Why are the Yankees working so hard to try to sign him?
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but the hypothesis that we're either signing Kimbrel to a 1-year deal or Ottavino for 2 plus option, and that the latter deal has been roughly agreed on, explains every known fact.
I see nothing in this statement from DDo that agrees with your assessment of their interest in Kimbrel (or Ottavino for that matter). Yes, $18M is a large expenditure. The phrase "large expenditure" in that sentence is specifically in reference to the sort of contract Kimbrel is asking other teams for, which was originally $100M and still has to be in the neighborhood of $75M. By large expenditure" DDo means $75M or more. It doesn't remotely follow that $18M is also a large expenditure.
We know why Kimbrel hasn't signed yet -- no one wants to give him what he wants.
Explain why there were reports that the Sox and Kimbrel nevertheless have talked. And explain why the one reliever who was most strongly linked to the Sox in terms of interest is also unsigned, when the next seven relievers on the board all have -- Britton, Familia, Miller, Kelly, Herrera, Soria, and (the consensus first guy in the next tier) Jesse Chavez.
They've built a team that looks capable of winning 110 games in 2019 and have no payroll restraints, but they'll have to cut payroll the following year, which means they have a 1-year window where they're the favorite to do what no team has done for twenty years -- win back-to-back WS.
Explain why they would nevertheless nickel-and-dime the bullpen for 2019. Explain why Brian Bannister, while promoting Barnes' stuff as closer-quality, added that not all guys are suited for the job and you never know if they are until you try them in that role. If the plan were to have Barnes close, he'd just keep his mouth shut on the latter point, correct? I mean, when Nick Cafardo understands something -- he spent a whole column saying it would be insane for the Sox to not acquire a pitcher with closing experience -- you know it's obvious.
As others have pointed out, if Ottavino's 2020 salary looks like the impediment to re-signing Bogaerts and/or Sale while staying under the tax limit, you can trade him. (I think for that reason they'll pick one guy -- Barnes or Brasier -- to consistently close on days when the closer isn't available, which was precisely Ottavino's role last year with the Rockies.)
Once you've explained all of those things with explanations as good as mine, then you've got a counter-argument.
BTW, Ottavino had 6 saves in 7 actual save opportunities last year. He had 34 holds and 5 blown holds (one a loss) that were recorded as "blown saves."
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 9, 2019 19:07:20 GMT -5
Again, the loss of access to young talent is what's driving this. Benintendi was their top draft choice. He just played an enormous role on a championship team. He's been paid 2% of his actual worth. It goes on and on. Not being allowed to draft that quality of player is the game changer. That's how this works. It's not rocket science guys and gals. They can do great legwork scouting younger and lower tier talent but it's more of a crapshoot and teams are using ever more sophisticated evaluations to find the Betts of the world. Benintendi's trajectory tells you all you need to know. The next one out there would be out of reach if they persist in going over the threshold. Did you really go there? The one player on the team that was a high draft pick. Come on now. Don't act like we were built like the Astros or that is the only way to build a team either. Your taking the debate about us having to reset the tax line and turning it into a we have to do a full on rebuild after next year. Frankly your the only person I've ever heard say that. The Yankees rebuilt without ever tanking. If were talking about owners losing money your way is going to hurt profits the most. Nevermind we've won four Championships and never once acted like the Astros. I'll bet you a $100 bucks that the Red Sox plan isn't to tank in 2020 to get high draft picks.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 9, 2019 19:25:06 GMT -5
Again, the loss of access to young talent is what's driving this. Benintendi was their top draft choice. He just played an enormous role on a championship team. He's been paid 2% of his actual worth. It goes on and on. Not being allowed to draft that quality of player is the game changer. That's how this works. It's not rocket science guys and gals. They can do great legwork scouting younger and lower tier talent but it's more of a crapshoot and teams are using ever more sophisticated evaluations to find the Betts of the world. Benintendi's trajectory tells you all you need to know. The next one out there would be out of reach if they persist in going over the threshold. The other piece of it is that to get a player specifically of Benintendi's ilk it took a disappointing 91 loss season. Moving back from say 28th, 29th, or 30th to ten spaces later constantly would likely make things worse when it comes to getting young talent. It's tougher and tougher to find that diamond in the rough the way they found Betts and even then he got paid more as a 5th rounder than I think you can pay these days with the slotting system, so in a way not only are their penalties involved with going over the threshold repeatedly but when it comes to the draft you can be a victim of your own success. Tough to get those #7 picks when you have such a great season. Nobody in their right mind complains about a great season, especially a 2018, but at some point it should catch up when it comes to the drafting of talent unless your evaluators are much more effective and/or luckier. It's a tough needle to thread. Nick Northcut says hello, a guy that is rated a lot higher than Betts was. Brandon Howlett says hello and shows smart teams can still do just that. Yea at some point it likely will catch up with you. You'll get maxed out, the young talent might dry up, your high priced players will get old. The point I'm making is that is when you rebuild. You don't do it before that happens like Jimed and Norm are saying. You don't rebuild before you need to rebuild, so you can avoid a rebuild. Yea that sounds crazy because it is. I've also hever said I expect the team to blow 40 million past the tax line every year either. I have zero problem if most years they use the upper tax line as a hard cap type of cap. Its just the we have to reset crap every three years crap a don't agree with. Resetting and being 39.99 million over the tax line does nothing to effect our draft picks. Its all about money. If they are resetting next year then yes they should blow past the upper tax line this year. If they plan on not resetting next year than I have zero issue if they don't go over the upper tax line this year.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 9, 2019 19:46:57 GMT -5
Again, the loss of access to young talent is what's driving this. Benintendi was their top draft choice. He just played an enormous role on a championship team. He's been paid 2% of his actual worth. It goes on and on. Not being allowed to draft that quality of player is the game changer. That's how this works. It's not rocket science guys and gals. They can do great legwork scouting younger and lower tier talent but it's more of a crapshoot and teams are using ever more sophisticated evaluations to find the Betts of the world. Benintendi's trajectory tells you all you need to know. The next one out there would be out of reach if they persist in going over the threshold. Did you really go there? The one player on the team that was a high draft pick. Come on now. Don't act like we were built like the Astros or that is the only way to build a team either. Your taking the debate about us having to reset the tax line and turning it into a we have to do a full on rebuild after next year. Frankly your the only person I've ever heard say that. The Yankees rebuilt without ever tanking. If were talking about owners losing money your way is going to hurt profits the most. Nevermind we've won four Championships and never once acted like the Astros. I'll bet you a $100 bucks that the Red Sox plan isn't to tank in 2020 to get high draft picks. What is it you don't understand, or is this just another useless argument for the sake of arguing. They drafted one of their more valuable players in the first round. That's what they risk losing over and over again. And stop with the stupid non-sequitur and the red herrings. I'm not talking about the Astros, you are. I'm keeping it real simple: the team wants to stay under the higher threshold so they don't lose their shot at first round draft choices. Is that clear enough?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 9, 2019 20:04:46 GMT -5
Did you really go there? The one player on the team that was a high draft pick. Come on now. Don't act like we were built like the Astros or that is the only way to build a team either. Your taking the debate about us having to reset the tax line and turning it into a we have to do a full on rebuild after next year. Frankly your the only person I've ever heard say that. The Yankees rebuilt without ever tanking. If were talking about owners losing money your way is going to hurt profits the most. Nevermind we've won four Championships and never once acted like the Astros. I'll bet you a $100 bucks that the Red Sox plan isn't to tank in 2020 to get high draft picks. What is it you don't understand, or is this just another useless argument for the sake of arguing. They drafted one of their more valuable players in the first round. That's what they risk losing over and over again. And stop with the stupid non-sequitur and the red herrings. I'm not talking about the Astros, you are. I'm keeping it real simple: the team wants to stay under the higher threshold so they don't lose their shot at first round draft choices. Is that clear enough? Ok that’s a little misleading though because we are talking about 10 slots in the draft not just Willy Nilly giving up first round picks year after year. Dropping from say pick 28 to 38 isn’t a big deal in our eyes when it means that much better big league team. No one is advocating to spend recklessly every year no matter what, but I want to take advantage of these guys prime years by spending. I certainly don’t want them to pull back because they are worried about 10 draft slots but agree to disagree I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 9, 2019 20:05:50 GMT -5
Did you really go there? The one player on the team that was a high draft pick. Come on now. Don't act like we were built like the Astros or that is the only way to build a team either. Your taking the debate about us having to reset the tax line and turning it into a we have to do a full on rebuild after next year. Frankly your the only person I've ever heard say that. The Yankees rebuilt without ever tanking. If were talking about owners losing money your way is going to hurt profits the most. Nevermind we've won four Championships and never once acted like the Astros. I'll bet you a $100 bucks that the Red Sox plan isn't to tank in 2020 to get high draft picks. What is it you don't understand, or is this just another useless argument for the sake of arguing. They drafted one of their more valuable players in the first round. That's what they risk losing over and over again. And stop with the stupid non-sequitur and the red herrings. I'm not talking about the Astros, you are. I'm keeping it real simple: the team wants to stay under the higher threshold so they don't lose their shot at first round draft choices. Is that clear enough? Going from pick 30 to pick 40 doesn't make you lose the ability to add a player like Benny. You could only get a player like Benny in the top 10. So what does Benny have to do with resetting the tax and not spending? Benny was the 7th overall pick in the 2015 draft. If you feel we need players like him, then you want us to tank! Like I've now said many times I'm not saying I want them to spend over the upper tax limit every year and get their pick moved back. Just the notion that they have to reset is foolish. Like the owners will lose money if they don't. Your reply to that is that its all about talent like Benny and it just doesn't make any sense as he was the 7th overall pick.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,108
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 9, 2019 20:07:00 GMT -5
Did you really go there? The one player on the team that was a high draft pick. Come on now. Don't act like we were built like the Astros or that is the only way to build a team either. Your taking the debate about us having to reset the tax line and turning it into a we have to do a full on rebuild after next year. Frankly your the only person I've ever heard say that. The Yankees rebuilt without ever tanking. If were talking about owners losing money your way is going to hurt profits the most. Nevermind we've won four Championships and never once acted like the Astros. I'll bet you a $100 bucks that the Red Sox plan isn't to tank in 2020 to get high draft picks. What is it you don't understand, or is this just another useless argument for the sake of arguing. They drafted one of their more valuable players in the first round. That's what they risk losing over and over again. And stop with the stupid non-sequitur and the red herrings. I'm not talking about the Astros, you are. I'm keeping it real simple: the team wants to stay under the higher threshold so they don't lose their shot at first round draft choices. Is that clear enough? I think we can all agree that turning the 7th pick into the 17th pick would be a massive price to pay, though of course even the 7th pick can bust. But turning the 23rd-27th pick into the 33rd-37th pick is not nearly as big a cost, and there are circumstances in which it would be a reasonable cost. And presumably the money spent going over the limit would likely make our pick closer to 27 than 7. Is that clear enough?
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 11, 2019 0:20:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jan 11, 2019 7:27:12 GMT -5
If the sox don't get one of Kimbrell/Ottavino, or even if they do, Hunter Strickland and especially AJ Ramos look like nice options. If healthy, Ramos could be really good.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Jan 11, 2019 7:50:19 GMT -5
If the sox don't get one of Kimbrell/Ottavino, or even if they do, Hunter Strickland and especially AJ Ramos look like nice options. If healthy, Ramos could be really good. Ramos is a free agent, but even if he gets signed, he is unlikely to contribute much at all in 2019 as he had surgery to repair a torn labrum on June 24. www.rotowire.com/baseball/player.php?id=12371
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jan 11, 2019 9:17:31 GMT -5
GD, you New Englanders can argue in some prickly ways....😀. It is good to see the back and forth.... interesting reading.
I think we got less than 40 days and we will likely have all the answers. Yeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaawwwwww !!!!
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 11, 2019 17:54:51 GMT -5
Ok they have let the market play out. Most of the big deals have been signed outside of two guys. Still there are a bunch of options. Yet they need to start doing something! Even if the plan is to wait out Kimbrel we could still use another bullpen arm. So why not sign a guy and have some insurance in case of no Kimbrel?
I'm targeting Allen and Wilson. Yet seeing how Holland did for the Nationals late in the year was impressive. So he's an option on what should be a low one year deal.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 11, 2019 17:59:00 GMT -5
Ok they have let the market play out. Most of the big deals have been signed outside of two guys. Still there are a bunch of options. Yet they need to start doing something! Even if the plan is to wait out Kimbrel we could still use another bullpen arm. So why not sign a guy and have some insurance in case of no Kimbrel? I'm targeting Allen and Wilson. Yet seeing how Holland did for the Nationals late in the year was impressive. So he's an option on what should be a low one year deal. I imagine that everyone left is being held up by one or two guys. I bet the Red Sox and Kimbrel are the ones holding everything up. The Sox are waiting for Kimbrel to go find something better than what the Red Sox want to pay him and he's having trouble finding it and they probably have a side deal with Ottavino that is contingent on Kimbrel figuring out what he's going to do.
|
|
|