|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 26, 2024 17:54:23 GMT -5
But it gets clicks which is all that matters. Facts be dammed Do owners ever open up their books? They just cry poverty. No company ever does unless forced by law |
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Oct 26, 2024 18:14:40 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong I think it's time they start spending over the LT at least the first threshold. I'll be honest I haven't been of that mindset the last few years as I thought the teams had enough upside to be good enough but using hindsight now you can pretty easily make a case the last few seasons if they'd just spent a little more they're playoff teams. No more excuses IMO not to spend $250-260M on the major league roster. I think the last couple years it would have been foolish to make any short sighted deals (short sighted with long term downside) but really no excuse not to spend and try and load up on short term high aav. Red Sox are in a tricky position so where they will likely have to over spend to get any premium player here to get the ball rolling (if it's via FA obviously). LIke if you're soto/sasaki or whomever and boston, nyy, dodgers, even the Mets offer similar deals...Boston may likely be 4th on the list of destinations. It's to the point where boston can offer 525 for soto, him go elsewhere for similar and boston can come out and say "well, we tried". Similar to the yomomoto sweepstakes. Fact is? They are probably not viewed as a "favorable destination" if money is equal. They'll have to do what they did with price, blow everyone out of the water. Why do you think this?? That's exactly falling into trap of what the FO wants you to think. I dont buy it for one second. What would reasons be? At keast going forward. - historic franchise - higher taxes but not NY or Ca so??? - up and coming roster - history of winning. Even recently - stable franchise - more exposure than most teams - rich enough owners. |
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 16,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 26, 2024 21:47:39 GMT -5
Do owners ever open up their books? They just cry poverty. No company ever does unless forced by law These same owners whine about how something resembling a salary cap is needed. Why should I believe them if they're unwilling to show their books. We know what players make. Why dont we know what owners make? |
|
briam
Veteran
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by briam on Oct 27, 2024 9:40:20 GMT -5
No company ever does unless forced by law These same owners whine about how something resembling a salary cap is needed. Why should I believe them if they're unwilling to show their books. We know what players make. Why dont we know what owners make? We do know what the Braves make, which I feel like is a similar club compared to the Sox. |
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 16,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 27, 2024 10:08:55 GMT -5
These same owners whine about how something resembling a salary cap is needed. Why should I believe them if they're unwilling to show their books. We know what players make. Why dont we know what owners make? We do know what the Braves make, which I feel like is a similar club compared to the Sox. I would think the Sox are higher on the revenue scale or at least were. |
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Oct 27, 2024 13:14:06 GMT -5
These same owners whine about how something resembling a salary cap is needed. Why should I believe them if they're unwilling to show their books. We know what players make. Why dont we know what owners make? We do know what the Braves make, which I feel like is a similar club compared to the Sox. No. Not even close. The. Braves are a publicly traded company on the NASDQ www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/07/19/atlanta-braves-publicly-traded/Tbus why we know about their financial information |
|
|
|
Post by trotnixon7 on Oct 27, 2024 14:07:34 GMT -5
I think the last couple years it would have been foolish to make any short sighted deals (short sighted with long term downside) but really no excuse not to spend and try and load up on short term high aav. Red Sox are in a tricky position so where they will likely have to over spend to get any premium player here to get the ball rolling (if it's via FA obviously). LIke if you're soto/sasaki or whomever and boston, nyy, dodgers, even the Mets offer similar deals...Boston may likely be 4th on the list of destinations. It's to the point where boston can offer 525 for soto, him go elsewhere for similar and boston can come out and say "well, we tried". Similar to the yomomoto sweepstakes. Fact is? They are probably not viewed as a "favorable destination" if money is equal. They'll have to do what they did with price, blow everyone out of the water. Why do you think this?? That's exactly falling into trap of what the FO wants you to think. I dont buy it for one second. What would reasons be? At keast going forward. - historic franchise - higher taxes but not NY or Ca so??? - up and coming roster - history of winning. Even recently - stable franchise - more exposure than most teams - rich enough owners. Sure, I'm not saying Boston CANT be a elite destination I'm simply stating they've likely lost SOME trust among players about being serious and overall 3 straight seasons of being irrelevant is a bit of a ding..at least relative to the elite destinations. |
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Oct 27, 2024 16:51:17 GMT -5
That doesn’t really refute the point, which is that the Braves probably generate a comparable amount to the Red Sox |
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Oct 27, 2024 17:48:38 GMT -5
That doesn’t really refute the point, which is that the Braves probably generate a comparable amount to the Red Sox According to numbers i saw braves were just over $500 M. Sox more like $550 |
|
curll
Rookie
Posts: 123
Member is Online
|
Post by curll on Oct 27, 2024 19:57:56 GMT -5
A bit of a crazy idea, but there's a match with the Angels that could wind up with a Trout/Story+Yoshida trade. The Sox would have six more years of Trout (maybe with a restructured, longer contract post-trade) and the Angels wouldn't have to do a full re-build, with shorter money on the books and a few AA/AAA prospects.
Dollar for dollar, it would cost the Sox an additional ~$75M-$110M if no money were exchanged over the final 3 seasons.
Not a total advocate for it, but Trout certainly seems to be a trade candidate this winter and could slot in at DH nicely.
On the flip side, I wouldn't mind trading Devers since his injuries and defense are worrisome over the next NINE seasons, but that's probably not happening.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 16,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 27, 2024 20:15:10 GMT -5
A bit of a crazy idea, but there's a match with the Angels that could wind up with a Trout/Story+Yoshida trade. The Sox would have six more years of Trout (maybe with a restructured, longer contract post-trade) and the Angels wouldn't have to do a full re-build, with shorter money on the books and a few AA/AAA prospects. Dollar for dollar, it would cost the Sox an additional ~$75M-$110M if no money were exchanged over the final 3 seasons. Not a total advocate for it, but Trout certainly seems to be a trade candidate this winter and could slot in at DH nicely. On the flip side, I wouldn't mind trading Devers since his injuries and defense are worrisome over the next NINE seasons, but that's probably not happening. Trout is the only real attraction for fans to come out and see the Angels- when he plays. They're not trading him. |
|
curll
Rookie
Posts: 123
Member is Online
|
Post by curll on Oct 27, 2024 20:57:28 GMT -5
Trout is the only real attraction for fans to come out and see the Angels- when he plays. They're not trading him. The Angels will try to trade Mike Trout this offseason. I don't know what else to tell you. The "loser" of the Soto sweepstakes will very likely get Mike Trout. (the Mets) |
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 16,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 27, 2024 21:07:34 GMT -5
Trout is the only real attraction for fans to come out and see the Angels- when he plays. They're not trading him. The Angels will try to trade Mike Trout this offseason. I don't know what else to tell you. The "loser" of the Soto sweepstakes will very likely get Mike Trout. (the Mets) Ok, we'll see, although I'd think if the Angels did trade him, theyd try to trade him for prospects/young players for a future core as opposed to swapping him for other bad contracts. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Oct 27, 2024 21:40:04 GMT -5
Restructured contract??
|
|
curll
Rookie
Posts: 123
Member is Online
|
Post by curll on Oct 27, 2024 21:50:09 GMT -5
$220M for someone who optimistically plays 50% of the games.... Add a few years, lower AAV, Angels take on some of the contract. Nothing the MLBPA would oppose. |
|
briam
Veteran
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by briam on Oct 27, 2024 23:04:03 GMT -5
That doesn’t really refute the point, which is that the Braves probably generate a comparable amount to the Red Sox According to numbers i saw braves were just over $500 M. Sox more like $550 Exactly, owning NESN is an interesting piece to their revenue too. We’ll never know how much they spend in all of their off-field positions/resources but I’d imagine they are relatively similar. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Oct 28, 2024 6:58:55 GMT -5
$220M for someone who optimistically plays 50% of the games.... Add a few years, lower AAV, Angels take on some of the contract. Nothing the MLBPA would oppose. From MLB (https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/competitive-balance-tax) (Note: If a player signs a contract extension that doesn't kick in until a later season, his AAV for the purposes of the CBT doesn't change until the new deal begins.) Also not sure why Trout would do it, even if it worked that way. |
|
|
|
Post by bloomstaxonomy on Oct 28, 2024 18:31:55 GMT -5
I always bungle it when I try to embed a tweet, but former Red Sox assistant gm Zack Scott just tweeted:
“This triggers flashbacks to internal conversations about signing Mookie, and our owner said he had no interest in doing mega deals. I guess you can build around them.🤷♂️ #redsox #dodgers #yankees #WorldSeries2024 #mlb”
This was in response to a list of top 10 salaried players for the Dodgers and Yankees.
Feels like a pretty significant statement in the context of this particular discussion but also the constant back and forth about Mookie.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 16,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 28, 2024 18:45:31 GMT -5
I always bungle it when I try to embed a tweet, but former Red Sox assistant gm Zack Scott just tweeted: “This triggers flashbacks to internal conversations about signing Mookie, and our owner said he had no interest in doing mega deals. I guess you can build around them.🤷♂️ #redsox #dodgers #yankees #WorldSeries2024 #mlb” This was in response to a list of top 10 salaried players for the Dodgers and Yankees. Feels like a pretty significant statement in the context of this particular discussion but also the constant back and forth about Mookie. Nah, it's just easier to blame Mookie for not taking a hometown discount  |
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 28, 2024 19:02:18 GMT -5
I always bungle it when I try to embed a tweet, but former Red Sox assistant gm Zack Scott just tweeted: “This triggers flashbacks to internal conversations about signing Mookie, and our owner said he had no interest in doing mega deals. I guess you can build around them.🤷♂️ #redsox #dodgers #yankees #WorldSeries2024 #mlb” This was in response to a list of top 10 salaried players for the Dodgers and Yankees. Feels like a pretty significant statement in the context of this particular discussion but also the constant back and forth about Mookie. I wonder what made him change his mind between Mookie in 2019 and Devers in 2022? |
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Oct 28, 2024 19:14:54 GMT -5
I always bungle it when I try to embed a tweet, but former Red Sox assistant gm Zack Scott just tweeted: “This triggers flashbacks to internal conversations about signing Mookie, and our owner said he had no interest in doing mega deals. I guess you can build around them.🤷♂️ #redsox #dodgers #yankees #WorldSeries2024 #mlb” This was in response to a list of top 10 salaried players for the Dodgers and Yankees. Feels like a pretty significant statement in the context of this particular discussion but also the constant back and forth about Mookie. Isn’t it kind of a no no for a former assistant GM to blow up the owners spot like that? I mean let’s be honest, most of us assumed this was the case. Interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Oct 28, 2024 19:20:30 GMT -5
A bit of a crazy idea, but there's a match with the Angels that could wind up with a Trout/Story+Yoshida trade. The Sox would have six more years of Trout (maybe with a restructured, longer contract post-trade) and the Angels wouldn't have to do a full re-build, with shorter money on the books and a few AA/AAA prospects. Dollar for dollar, it would cost the Sox an additional ~$75M-$110M if no money were exchanged over the final 3 seasons. Not a total advocate for it, but Trout certainly seems to be a trade candidate this winter and could slot in at DH nicely. On the flip side, I wouldn't mind trading Devers since his injuries and defense are worrisome over the next NINE seasons, but that's probably not happening. If the Sox are able to trade Story and Yoshida for Trout it shouldn’t matter if Trout is on one leg hobbling around for the next half decade, put him at DH and make the deal. Story and Yoshida have some pretty rough looking contracts too. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 29, 2024 9:49:50 GMT -5
I always bungle it when I try to embed a tweet, but former Red Sox assistant gm Zack Scott just tweeted: “This triggers flashbacks to internal conversations about signing Mookie, and our owner said he had no interest in doing mega deals. I guess you can build around them.🤷♂️ #redsox #dodgers #yankees #WorldSeries2024 #mlb” This was in response to a list of top 10 salaried players for the Dodgers and Yankees. Feels like a pretty significant statement in the context of this particular discussion but also the constant back and forth about Mookie. Isn’t it kind of a no no for a former assistant GM to blow up the owners spot like that? I mean let’s be honest, most of us assumed this was the case. Interesting. Scott seems to be doing well with his consulting gig and maybe isn't concerned about getting back into a front office. I was surprised at the frankness myself. As for the difference between then and 2022, my guess is there is more nuance to it than 140 characters allows. |
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Oct 29, 2024 10:11:10 GMT -5
I always bungle it when I try to embed a tweet, but former Red Sox assistant gm Zack Scott just tweeted: “This triggers flashbacks to internal conversations about signing Mookie, and our owner said he had no interest in doing mega deals. I guess you can build around them.🤷♂️ #redsox #dodgers #yankees #WorldSeries2024 #mlb” This was in response to a list of top 10 salaried players for the Dodgers and Yankees. Feels like a pretty significant statement in the context of this particular discussion but also the constant back and forth about Mookie. Isn’t it kind of a no no for a former assistant GM to blow up the owners spot like that? Several of Zack's old colleagues have been laid off recently by the current regime |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 29, 2024 10:49:55 GMT -5
Isn’t it kind of a no no for a former assistant GM to blow up the owners spot like that? Several of Zack's old colleagues have been laid off recently by the current regime Sincerely doubt this has anything to do with anything. Do you have anyone specific in mind here? |
|
