|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 22, 2018 20:20:26 GMT -5
Yeah, unless it's tucked away in a weird spot, and I missed it too, the CBA doesn't say anything about the upper threshold taking away international bonus money. It looks like the only thing that takes away international bonus money is signing players who are offered a qualifying offer.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 21, 2018 13:25:51 GMT -5
I don't understand why the Red Sox traded Brentz for money rather than for international bonus money. The Pirates still had approx $2.2 million available at the end of November 2017. You would think they would have sought more international bonus money rather than straight cash. I could be wrong, but I think the Red Sox have already maxed out the amount of money they can trade for
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 20, 2018 10:46:24 GMT -5
Pedro is right. I think most expected that we would sign JDM but that we were somewhere in the 5 for 125 range (from reports----altho recent spec put the $ figure lower), far from Boras. My expectation was that we would move either in AAV or add a year to get it done. Regardless, to me this is, in essence, a 2 year contract. If it turns out to be 5 years, JDM will have become an albatross...which I don't expect. This is the last I’ll comment on the matter because it really shouldn’t be about who’s right and who’s wrong but this is annoying me. He literally said “no one could see this coming” and “if anyone told me this was a possibility”... those aren’t the same as what you’re saying that “most of us expected”. There were plenty of us here saying this type of deal should get it done and if it didn’t then let him walk. If the numbers in this deal are surprising to you, then you were not paying attention or/and you just didn’t believe Dombrowski had the fortitude to not bid against himself and grossly over-pay. Even if you expected 5/125, this number shouldn’t be all that surprising. We should also not forget that opt-outs are worth a certain amount to players as well. I'm on mobile, and can't link, but FanGraphs' did a piece after Price signed, that said his opt out was worth about $10M to him. I don't have a specific number for what the two opt-outs are worth to JDM, but it's likely that it puts the contract value as close to the $225M that most people who took the survey said they preferred to see.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 19, 2018 16:29:07 GMT -5
Baseball is saved!!!
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 17, 2018 20:55:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 16, 2018 9:04:52 GMT -5
I'm down for a $3M AAV for Nunez. AAV is guaranteed dollars / guaranteed years. Since he is only guaranteed one-year his AAV will be between $6-7M, depending on how many incentives he gets
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 15, 2018 23:02:10 GMT -5
That's not a report. That's a prediction. OK, I can buy that but my question then remains where is Nilson Pepen getting his info from? There's nobody else reporting any progress between Boston and JDM, and Heyman's report sounds like the opposite of Pepen's report. I don't know about Pepen, but again, Heyman didn't "report" anything.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 15, 2018 22:49:13 GMT -5
So naturally it looks like Martinez is going back to Arizona. I'm sure Heyman got his scoop from the horse's mouth (or some body part). I hate to say it but I believe him over Nilson Pepen, who I've never heard of before...kind of reminds me when some TV guy in RI was talking about the Sox landing Stanton. So Jon Heyman is reporting this: 3. J.D. Martinez. The staredown with the Red Sox has been going on for weeks. And they certainly have a chance. But taking Martinez at his word, he’d rather play the outfield than DH and he absolutely loved Arizona, where he advised his childhood friend Alex Avila to sign and where they have hired his hitting guru Robert Van Scoyoc. As was reported on FanRag this week, they are working on creative ways to keep him. Prediction: Diamondbacks. Others: Red Sox, Blue Jays (long shot). That's not a report. That's a prediction.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 14, 2018 22:35:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 14, 2018 20:55:16 GMT -5
So, when — do we cut and run if JD isn’t signed? I think there has to be great value to him being on the team for ST — no? You have to know your teammates and, them, you, before the season starts. If that means you then watch JDM sign for 5/80 with the B’backs, so be it. If there's one position that doesn't benefit from being familiar with teammates, I think it would be the DH.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 11, 2018 1:26:28 GMT -5
Yes and no. I'm blacked out of 4 teams where I live on MLB.tv, but when I had directv I could still watch 3 of them through local affiliates. When we moved, and tried switching cable companies, for some reason they had a different definition of local affiliates, so even though I was still blacked out of 4 teams, I only had access to watch one of them locally. Did you try last year? Because of the class action lawsuit they changed the blackout rules. www.gottabemobile.com/mlb-blackouts-will-disappear-in-2017/No actually. I just got into the habit of using a VPN to bypass the blackout rules. I'll have to check it out this year.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 10, 2018 10:56:16 GMT -5
As long as you're not blacked out that is... It's the same blackout rules for the cable package vs the mlb.tv package. Yes and no. I'm blacked out of 4 teams where I live on MLB.tv, but when I had directv I could still watch 3 of them through local affiliates. When we moved, and tried switching cable companies, for some reason they had a different definition of local affiliates, so even though I was still blacked out of 4 teams, I only had access to watch one of them locally.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 10, 2018 9:50:03 GMT -5
I live in western NY and recently switched to Time Warner cable, from Direct TV.... well, I don't think they have the MLB package. My fiancee is not gonna be happy, but we might need to switch back. Online MLB.TV is fine. No need for cable. As long as you're not blacked out that is...
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 9, 2018 14:59:55 GMT -5
Well, I'd say the fact that the biggest free agent that DOESN'T have a QO hasn't signed means there might be more to the slow market than QOs. This. Plus the two biggest contracts signed so far were QO guys, if you don't count Upton re-signing with the Angels (Cain, Santana). There's no reason to think the QO is what's keeping those free agent from being signed. Martinez and Darvish haven't signed, don't have QOs, and arguably are the best two free agents on the market. I mean, I see where you're coming from, but if a player is having a hard time getting a contract without a qualifying offer, it's not like it's going to get easier for them a year later when they have a qualifying offer attached to their name.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 9, 2018 8:52:38 GMT -5
I think qualifying offers are overrated now... teams are really not too scared off by them since the penalty is less severe than they were a couple years ago. This might be your thoughts on the qualifying offer, but absolutely nothing that has happened this off-season backs up the claim that teams are no longer scared of paying a penalty for signing players.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 8, 2018 19:54:22 GMT -5
JDM isn't taking a pillow contract. He would not only be one year older, but his team would be able to offer him a qualifying offer at the end of the year which would only depress his market even further.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 6, 2018 21:09:56 GMT -5
It's hard to blame Dave Dombrowski for missing the market, when we've literally never seen a market like this. Having said that, he missed it.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 3, 2018 10:00:46 GMT -5
If you're not fully competing to win, what do you call it then? They aren't trying to lose to get the #1 overall pick like in the NBA. Well they certainly aren't trying to win either.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 2, 2018 20:40:29 GMT -5
Yeah. That's not tanking. There has never been a league in existence where every team is a "going all in" contender. There's a pretty big gap from going all in to basically not spending a dime, and teams are much closer to the latter right now.
|
|
|
Boras
Feb 2, 2018 19:50:01 GMT -5
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 2, 2018 19:50:01 GMT -5
Spoiler: It isn't Boras.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 2, 2018 19:46:21 GMT -5
Right. It's semantics, but if you're systematically selling off any and all players that have any value then it's tanking. If you're not actively trying to get better in the off-season then it's tanking. I guess I think that is really short sighted -- I mean, if you look at an aging team that has players with value that are on the other end of their career -- is it better for them futilely to hold on to those guys, or to get what they can for them now? Was Detroit wrong to trade Verlander? Would they be wrong if they had a chance to trade Cabrera if they took it? To me, winning is about winning as soon as you can. Sometimes that is not this season -- and sometimes the most value a player has is in trades. It is not like the NBA where teams actually sit good players. If the Sox fell out of contention and stopped pitching Sale and Pom... that would definitely be tanking. Let me clarify: I don't think it's a bad thing that certain teams have decided to tank. Your example of Detroit was a great example of a team that needed to rid themselves of some bloat and take a better run at it in a few years. I just don't think a team has to do the exact same thing as an NBA for it to be considered tanking. If I have a problem with anything, it's how many teams have decided to not make an attempt to win for next season. In addition to teams like the Marlins selling off players, I saw a tweet today that said only 11 teams have signed a player to a contract of over 15 million so far this off-season. Every owner just got a check for $50MM thanks to BAMTech (and that's without getting into the normal revenue they make every year), yet there are 19 teams that couldn't find a single FA to give a fraction of that money to. THAT's a problem.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 2, 2018 18:22:19 GMT -5
I don't think it's fair to call what these teams are doing 'tanking' in the same manner as basketball where teams are actively trying to lose. These teams simply aren't working hard to win in the short term, which can suck for the fans but is also smart business which should help them win in future years. For example, the white Sox aren't pushing to win right now and are projected to win only 65 games. But if they accidentally win 90 games and make the playoffs, I believe they would be quite happy. (Conversely the 2013-2016 76ers would have been unhappy with this result) If you're not competing to win WCSox, then that is tanking in my book. None of these teams are actively trying to compete. I don't blame the teams for doing this. Some of them had no choice after winning for a long period, but it is tanking in my book. I think the highest paid contract handed out by these teams while they were "tanking" was the Nick Markakis contract by Atlanta in free agency. It's the number one thing Boras has pointed to blame when it's come to the lack of movement this off-season. Right. It's semantics, but if you're systematically selling off any and all players that have any value then it's tanking. If you're not actively trying to get better in the off-season then it's tanking.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 2, 2018 16:04:40 GMT -5
Many NBA players also become restricted free agents before most MLB players reach the majors. It's silly to try to compare parts of a league's structure without taking everything into consideration.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 2, 2018 9:55:54 GMT -5
Pitch Talks @pitchtalks Follow Follow @pitchtalks #BlueJays GM Ross Atkins "when you're talking about free agency you're talking about aging players and the trend of overpaying a player's aging curves has come to an end across baseball" That's great, but then the union needs to fight in 2020 to end underpaying the front part of that curve. Hmmm, so the guy that gave Jose Bautista $18MM just last season says baseball, suddenly and in it's entirety, has decided to stop paying market value for a certain type of player. Seems like the type of statement that basically confirms there's collusion going on.
|
|
|
Post by swingingbunt on Feb 1, 2018 8:47:58 GMT -5
Why are people mentioning Mike Trout? Because Pedro has taken the stance that any contact offer to Mookie, short of what Mike Trout got, was a slap in the face. Which, again, is ridiculous.
|
|