2019-20 Baseball offseason | Page 8 | Syracusefan.com
.

2019-20 Baseball offseason

donniesyracuse said:
What Do the Red Sox Actually Save by Trading Betts, Price?

“The narrative teams like to point to every three years about the benefits of resetting their competitive balance tax penalties undersells where the real savings come from. Teams are just grabbing a bunch of cash today, and using future savings as an excuse for that windfall.”
Expand...
It’s a joke. John Henry is worth 2.7 billion.
Will charge 15 bucks for a beer at Fenway whether or not Mookie is on the team or not.
Will make a chit load of money off NESN that he gets to keep without sharing to the teams.

This deal was a joke when I outlined how the Red Sox could below the CBT without trading Mookie.

They wasted 11 million dollars tendering Jackie Bradley Jr. who nobody in their right mind would pay him that. Kevin Pillar is a better player than JBJ and he just signed for 4.5 million.

They could have eaten some money from Eovaldi, Martinez or Price and traded them.

Henry took a chit on his fans and because those fans want to fight me instead of looking at what he did this stuff happens.
The Red Sox never have to worry about payroll.
The Yankees don’t spend like George in his prime but they won’t trade Aaron Judge in 3 years because he won’t sign a team friendly deal.
Didn’t Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera go to FA before resigning in their careers.
Sox told fans they aren’t trying to compete in 2020 and because of their own bad signings won’t resign their best player.
 
donniesyracuse said:
What Do the Red Sox Actually Save by Trading Betts, Price?

“The narrative teams like to point to every three years about the benefits of resetting their competitive balance tax penalties undersells where the real savings come from. Teams are just grabbing a bunch of cash today, and using future savings as an excuse for that windfall.”
Expand...

Maybe I'm missing something but the author focuses heavily on the savings associated with the luxury tax. What about the savings related to not having to pay out $15 million of annual salary to Price (and his shaky elbow) for a few more years plus the expected outlay of $30 million for Betts per annum well into the 2030s? Time and time again it's been shown that teams that pay out mega contracts for players live to regret it. The list is rather lengthy.

It's quite likely that baseball attendance and viewership will decline over the next ten years. All the signs are there. Getting tied to massive contracts is a fool's errand. Maybe there is a reason why Henry accumulated $2.7 billion (per alsacs) of net worth. He's smart enough to see what's coming down the line. And why should he be expected to subsidize massive contracts with his personal wealth anyway? What other MLB owners do that?
 
Alsacs said:
It’s a joke. John Henry is worth 2.7 billion.
Will charge 15 bucks for a beer at Fenway whether or not Mookie is on the team or not.
Will make a chit load of money off NESN that he gets to keep without sharing to the teams.

This deal was a joke when I outlined how the Red Sox could below the CBT without trading Mookie.

They wasted 11 million dollars tendering Jackie Bradley Jr. who nobody in their right mind would pay him that. Kevin Pillar is a better player than JBJ and he just signed for 4.5 million.

They could have eaten some money from Eovaldi, Martinez or Price and traded them.

Henry took a chit on his fans and because those fans want to fight me instead of looking at what he did this stuff happens.
The Red Sox never have to worry about payroll.
The Yankees don’t spend like George in his prime but they won’t trade Aaron Judge in 3 years because he won’t sign a team friendly deal.
Didn’t Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera go to FA before resigning in their careers.
Sox told fans they aren’t trying to compete in 2020 and because of their own bad signings won’t resign their best player.
Expand...


Given a choice between $2.7 billion and John Henry, I'd take the money.
 
bpo57 said:
Maybe I'm missing something but the author focuses heavily on the savings associated with the luxury tax.
Expand...
Yes, that is the point of the article. The benefits of resetting the luxury tax penalties are overstated. The Sox just didn’t want to pay him.
 
donniesyracuse said:
Yes, that is the point of the article. The benefits of resetting the luxury tax penalties are overstated. The Sox just didn’t want to pay him.
Expand...

Agreed and I don't blame them.

Paying a massive amount of $$$ to one baseball player (particularly a position player) just doesn't make much sense. I know you and I discussed the Padres prior to last season. Two years in a row they've opened up the vault to sign high profile FAs to massive contracts. Yet they still go out and win their customary 70 games. I'm sure they're already regretting those two contracts and yet the ink is barely dry.
 
Just seems to me like the whole point of having a baseball team is to develop and keep guys like Mookie Betts. (Granting that there aren't a whole lot of players like Betts, which again, is also the point)
 
Knicks411 said:
Just seems to me like the whole point of having a baseball team is to develop and keep guys like Mookie Betts. (Granting that there aren't a whole lot of players like Betts, which again, is also the point)
Expand...

At any price?
 
Anytime you can trade a franchise player for a POS who at worst watched a girl get assaulted and did nothing you gotta do it.


Mookie Betts contract demands for a team like the Red Sox shouldn’t ever be a problem. The team can afford to pay 35-40 million per season.
When they waste money on players as often as they do. Pablo Sandoval, Hanley Ramirez, Dustin Pedroia, David Price, Nathan Eovaldi etc.

If their was a hard salary cap it’s a different story. When the Red Sox print money it’s a different story.
 
Alsacs said:
Anytime you can trade a franchise player for a POS who at worst watched a girl get assaulted and did nothing you gotta do it.


Mookie Betts contract demands for a team like the Red Sox shouldn’t ever be a problem. The team can afford to pay 35-40 million per season.
When they waste money on players as often as they do. Pablo Sandoval, Hanley Ramirez, Dustin Pedroia, David Price, Nathan Eovaldi etc.

If their was a hard salary cap it’s a different story. When the Red Sox print money it’s a different story.
Expand...

Dude, let it go. How many different ways can u say the same thing?
 
Alsacs said:
Anytime you can trade a franchise player for a POS who at worst watched a girl get assaulted and did nothing you gotta do it.


Mookie Betts contract demands for a team like the Red Sox shouldn’t ever be a problem. The team can afford to pay 35-40 million per season.
When they waste money on players as often as they do. Pablo Sandoval, Hanley Ramirez, Dustin Pedroia, David Price, Nathan Eovaldi etc.

If their was a hard salary cap it’s a different story. When the Red Sox print money it’s a different story.
Expand...

How was Boston supposed to know that Pedroia would develop a degenerative knee condition? That's not their fault cuz the dude earned every penny of his contract prior to his injury. Price and Eovaldi made major contributions to a WS title. Not the best examples for sure. Sandoval? Yeah that was a disaster.
 
Regarding Boston ducking the luxury tax. The luxury tax is not even really that punitive in baseball. In basketball it is a real killer.

If you are $50 million over the tax line -- in baseball third time over the line, based on what I have read the tax is $25 million. In basketball a third time repeater tax would be over $200 million.
 
Lol this ownership knows fans hate their guts. Short handed sorry we traded the best player on our team for .25 cents on the dollar instead of trying to compete this season and try to resign in him in FA.
However please still come to Fenway drink your 15 dollar beers and sing Sweet Caroline.
This ownership is not popular with Red Sox fans (Except people who just want to disagree cause I think it)


 
Alsacs said:
Lol this ownership knows fans hate their guts. Short handed sorry we traded the best player on our team for .25 cents on the dollar instead of trying to compete this season and try to resign in him in FA.
However please still come to Fenway drink your 15 dollar beers and sing Sweet Caroline.
This ownership is not popular with Red Sox fans (Except people who just want to disagree cause I think it)


Expand...

I don't care what you think of the ownership. Who cares how popular the ownership of a team is. Since when is that a thing? The Bruins have done fine with a guy that doesn't live here and no one likes. The Celtics have had a tradition of winning titles and changing ownership for 60 years. The pats owner vouched for a murderer and has a team that has consistently been accused of cheating. They have lost not one but two first round picks over it. I have been a red sox fan for over 50 years and will be till the day that I die. This ownership group is the best thing that ever happened to the Red Sox. 4 world titles. With 3 different G.M.'s and 3 different managers. The one constant, the owner. I know, it's luck. Just like Liverpool is luck. The guy went from no where to a billionaire, Do I agree with everything they do? Of course not. Doesn't mean I'm right and they are wrong though. I don't agree that you trade Mookie and Price and raise ticket prices. But long term, the Sox will be back. And I haven't mentioned the improvements they were able to make at Fenway Park.
 
Four WS titles in 15 seasons (creatorsgame: is my math correct on that?) after an 86 year drought. Yeah they've made some occasional bad moves but what ownership group hasn't? Overall they deserve high marks.
 
dasher said:
I don't care what you think of the ownership. Who cares how popular the ownership of a team is. Since when is that a thing? The Bruins have done fine with a guy that doesn't live here and no one likes. The Celtics have had a tradition of winning titles and changing ownership for 60 years. The pats owner vouched for a murderer and has a team that has consistently been accused of cheating. They have lost not one but two first round picks over it. I have been a red sox fan for over 50 years and will be till the day that I die. This ownership group is the best thing that ever happened to the Red Sox. 4 world titles. With 3 different G.M.'s and 3 different managers. The one constant, the owner. I know, it's luck. Just like Liverpool is luck. The guy went from no where to a billionaire, Do I agree with everything they do? Of course not. Doesn't mean I'm right and they are wrong though. I don't agree that you trade Mookie and Price and raise ticket prices. But long term, the Sox will be back. And I haven't mentioned the improvements they were able to make at Fenway Park.
Expand...
I respect you and I respect your opinions.
We disagree on this one.

For the record Jeremy Jacobs is a worse owner no doubt
John Henry isn’t why the Red Sox suddenly won also you know that.
The market and support from the fanbase is why payroll has been high.
They make a lot of money so they know they have to spend.

I don’t think this ownership is that special or should get credit for the WS. We have been over this so I am not going to detail it.

If Henry sold the team the team wouldn’t suck unless they hired an owner like Jeremy Jacobs. The arrogance from this ownership and tone deafness attitude has hurt the teams popularity.
 
Alsacs said:
I respect you and I respect your opinions.
We disagree on this one.

For the record Jeremy Jacobs is a worse owner no doubt
John Henry isn’t why the Red Sox suddenly won also you know that.
The market and support from the fanbase is why payroll has been high.
They make a lot of money so they know they have to spend.

I don’t think this ownership is that special or should get credit for the WS. We have been over this so I am not going to detail it.

If Henry sold the team the team wouldn’t suck unless they hired an owner like Jeremy Jacobs. The arrogance from this ownership and tone deafness attitude has hurt the teams popularity.
Expand...
Since they bought the team, what baseball organization has been the most successful? I'll answer it so you don't have to. The Red Sox. I don't know if you think that has been luck or coincidence. I don't think it is either. They have been top three in payroll for the entire time they have owned the team. Different G.M.'s Different managers. One ownership group. And to follow that up, they buy the Liverpool soccer team, down on it's @ss, and lo and behold, they are the class of the world. They run the Red Sox as a business. I wish they could or would have signed Betts. But it takes two to tango. Someone would have out bid them at the end of the day. The Dodgers may find that out next year.
 
dasher said:
Since they bought the team, what baseball organization has been the most successful? I'll answer it so you don't have to. The Red Sox. I don't know if you think that has been luck or coincidence. I don't think it is either. They have been top three in payroll for the entire time they have owned the team. Different G.M.'s Different managers. One ownership group. And to follow that up, they buy the Liverpool soccer team, down on it's @ss, and lo and behold, they are the class of the world. They run the Red Sox as a business. I wish they could or would have signed Betts. But it takes two to tango. Someone would have out bid them at the end of the day. The Dodgers may find that out next year.
Expand...

Henry didn't achieve the success he has enjoyed by being dumb. Signing Mookie to a 10+ year deal in the $375+ million range (maybe higher) would have been a dumb move. The last 4-5 years of that deal you'd be choking on it with severe regret. Given the trajectory of MLB attendance and ratings, it is unlikely that revenue will grow enough in the years to come to justify that outlay. Getting locked into a mega contract like that would be foolish.

The Sox weren't winning the WS this year, with or without Mookie. Time for a reset, keep the core and find a way to address the pitching by investing $$$ in that area. Wouldn't hurt to develop a few young pitchers but seems like not much there on the near horizon. But they're not going to be championship contenders until the pitching is much improved. Spending massively on Betts does nothing to address that key area.
 
MSOrange said:
RIP Tony Fernandez. Very underrated shortstop for many years with the Blue Jays.
Expand...
He was an awesome player for the Chiefs. The Blue Jays kept him down in AAA far too long, which hurt his MLB stats. But you are right, that guy could really play.
 
sutomcat said:
He was an awesome player for the Chiefs. The Blue Jays kept him down in AAA far too long, which hurt his MLB stats. But you are right, that guy could really play.
Expand...

I was wondering about that when I saw he had played 3 seasons in Syracuse. 1985 is the first year I really remember following the Chiefs and remember who was on the team, so Tony was just before my time as far as his minor league days.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
175,318
Messages
5,349,118
Members
6,233
Latest member
SUtoga

Online statistics

Members online
306
Guests online
7,030
Total visitors
7,336
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom