Debunking the 3 year window myth -- the Red Sox in 2020

[notin]

That would be fun.

 

No it wouldn't.

 

The Sox championship teams were fun in the past because we never knew they coild do it. No one exp. . Tlted 2004 or 2007 and certainly not 203b. That's what made then fun .

 

The last thing I want to see is Sox team that is a disappointment if it doesn't win....

[sk7326]

No it wouldn't.

 

The Sox championship teams were fun in the past because we never knew they coild do it. No one exp. . Tlted 2004 or 2007 and certainly not 203b. That's what made then fun .

 

The last thing I want to see is Sox team that is a disappointment if it doesn't win....

 

All of those 3 teams were awesome - that we did not see it coming was because we are Red Sox fans conditioned to not believe.

 

But seriously - the 2003 team was arguably the league's best team. Entering 2004, we KNEW they could win the whole damn thing. It became unexpected after that 19-8 loss. Just like the 2007 team became unexpected after the Guardians took a 3-1 lead. The 2013 team was the best team in the league from wire to wire. There is no such thing as a baseball team which is guaranteed a win - even the biggest mismatch in a series is still 60-40 tops.

[Kimmi]

There's so much uncertainty in the whole process. If Dombrowski doesn't trade for Sale maybe we're in third place right now and we don't even make the playoffs to get that chance. Nobody knew Price was going to be injured and Porcello was going to regress so much and our offense would score so many fewer runs. I think you were of the opinion that we didn't need Sale this year.

 

Yes, I thought that Sale was a luxury, not a necessity. I was counting on Price to be that guy. I didn't think he would have as great a season as Sale is having, but I thought he would rebound to form. It seems like Sale is indeed the difference maker, which is exactly why I am not the GM of the team.

[Nick]

Yes, I thought that Sale was a luxury, not a necessity. I was counting on Price to be that guy. I didn't think he would have as great a season as Sale is having, but I thought he would rebound to form. It seems like Sale is indeed the difference maker, which is exactly why I am not the GM of the team.

 

But Kimmi at the helm, Sox would have #1 farm system every year. AAA team would be better than Sox.

[Slasher9]

One source of revenue the Sox have been very successful at tapping is the in-park advertising dollar. I've sat in several areas of Fenway park over the past few years and I've counted the ads I can see from my seat. (Yes, I have. ADD runs rampant! LOL) It's been my experience that wherever I sit I can always see at about 100 ads, whether they're on the walls, above the walls, on the tarp, etc.

 

And of course there's the radio/tv subliminal ads. "Here's the starting lineup brought to you by_______". "According to the Amica Pitch Zone.....". And that doesn't begin to include all the "free" advertising promo's NESN gets for their own shows.

 

do you think we will start to see ads on the uniforms in MLB? (like soccer does).

[mvp 78]

do you think we will start to see ads on the uniforms in MLB? (like soccer does).

 

Ewwwwww...

[S5Dewey]

do you think we will start to see ads on the uniforms in MLB? (like soccer does).

 

Ugh. Let's hope this doesn't go from your lips to John Henry's ears.

[Slasher9]

I'm still waiting for the HUGH inflation in my paycheck.

 

if you return home alive from the front lines of NK you will have a little something extra in your paycheck....

[sk7326]

do you think we will start to see ads on the uniforms in MLB? (like soccer does).

 

Yes. NBA is there now. Just hope that it is (relatively) tasteful.

[Slasher9]

I understand all of that. As I posted earlier, signing Mookie now to a 10 year deal would be far preferable to waiting until he's a free agent to sign him to a 10 year deal. Also, it there were a player that I would give a year deal to, it would be Mookie.

 

All that said, I'm don't think it's worth the risk. JMO.

 

merchandising sales help mitigate the risk. granted you have to sell a ton of jerseys to get to $300MM but he has the 14th highest selling jersey in all of baseball as of the beginning of the year. his age, likeability, talent, tools, smile make him a player that i would sign today to a 10 year contract.

[Slasher9]

You're right that it's not a cap, but the escalating tax rates and penalties, some of which now affect the team's ability to acquire young talent, have made it extremely stupid to exceed certain thresholds.

 

it's 100% a cap because the owner says "don't spend over the spending limit as i dont want to incur LT". so that number becomes a cap for the Boston Red Sox. maybe that number is higher for other teams (NY, Dodgers) and maybe that number is lower for other teams (everyone else) but there is 100% a "cap" on what a team will spend on payroll each and every season.

[Bellhorn04]

it's 100% a cap because the owner says "don't spend over the spending limit as i dont want to incur LT". so that number becomes a cap for the Boston Red Sox. maybe that number is higher for other teams (NY, Dodgers) and maybe that number is lower for other teams (everyone else) but there is 100% a "cap" on what a team will spend on payroll each and every season.

 

An internal cap, in other words.

[sk7326]

it's 100% a cap because the owner says "don't spend over the spending limit as i dont want to incur LT". so that number becomes a cap for the Boston Red Sox. maybe that number is higher for other teams (NY, Dodgers) and maybe that number is lower for other teams (everyone else) but there is 100% a "cap" on what a team will spend on payroll each and every season.

 

We are on the same page - it is an internal limit! So a legitimate answer for "how do we pay for Betts" is for the very rich kazillionaires and their exceedingly lucrative franchise to increase the limit.

[S5Dewey]

We are on the same page - it is an internal limit! So a legitimate answer for "how do we pay for Betts" is for the very rich kazillionaires and their exceedingly lucrative franchise to increase the limit.

 

Yes. And we should be thankful that JH wants to be competitive rather than selling the franchise. My best guess is that the debt service on the loan to purchase the Boston Red Sox would prohibit this kind of spending on talent.

 

As I'm fond of saying about players who are doing well, let's ride this horse until it drops!

[Slasher9]

We are on the same page - it is an internal limit! So a legitimate answer for "how do we pay for Betts" is for the very rich kazillionaires and their exceedingly lucrative franchise to increase the limit.

 

yes we are on the same page that there is a team mandated cap. when we fund-raise for our 11U travel team for next years trip to cooperstown tournament we have noticed a common thread. it is FAR FAR FAR easier to get a working class citizen to dip into their wallet or purse to give you their last dollar than it is for an elite class citizen to peel a buck off of their bankroll from their aligator skin wallet or Gucci purse.

asking JH to dip into his own money so that Betts will remain your RFer will never ever ever happen. it will have to be within John Henry's established budget.

[mvp 78]

http://www.csnne.com/boston-red-sox/drellich-how-real-window-red-sox-or-any-mlb-team

 

It’s easier to back away from a window these days, if it’s started to close — or perceived to.

[sk7326]

Yes. And we should be thankful that JH wants to be competitive rather than selling the franchise. My best guess is that the debt service on the loan to purchase the Boston Red Sox would prohibit this kind of spending on talent.

 

As I'm fond of saying about players who are doing well, let's ride this horse until it drops!

 

There is no meaningful debt ... the big hitch, stadium debt service is the sort of thing which the Red Sox don't have to actually contend with. Fenway, like Wrigley is a license to print money.

[sk7326]

Yes. And we should be thankful that JH wants to be competitive rather than selling the franchise. My best guess is that the debt service on the loan to purchase the Boston Red Sox would prohibit this kind of spending on talent.

 

As I'm fond of saying about players who are doing well, let's ride this horse until it drops!

 

Grateful? For the prices they charge it's the least he can do ... I am eternally grateful for the 3 titles and the competent franchise management. But let's not go overboard.

[Spudboy]

There is no meaningful debt ... the big hitch, stadium debt service is the sort of thing which the Red Sox don't have to actually contend with. Fenway, like Wrigley is a license to print money.

 

Hmm. I don't disagree.

 

However an old stadium like Fenway will require more maintenance and refurbishment. That does cost money.

 

The "new" Sox ownership decided to pump money into the old gal rather than build a new, more modern facility.

 

I am not saying the sums spent in both instances are equivalent. I am saying that both exist and are significant.

[sk7326]

Hmm. I don't disagree.

 

However an old stadium like Fenway will require more maintenance and refurbishment. That does cost money.

 

The "new" Sox ownership decided to pump money into the old gal rather than build a new, more modern facility.

 

I am not saying the sums spent in both instances are equivalent. I am saying that both exist and are significant.

 

Listen, the team has run its ship well. All I was pointing out was ... if this team is making Tampa Bay type of decisions with regards to re-signing stars in their prime, then we as fans of a high high revenue team have a right to not be on board with that. And when I see posters rack and stack future payroll and then say - well the tax limit is $X so they only have $Y to spend - that is just not true. They can spend more than $Y if the right guy came up - and as supporters of a high revenue (among the 3 highest) it's something fans can rightly demand.

[moonslav59]

Listen, the team has run its ship well. All I was pointing out was ... if this team is making Tampa Bay type of decisions with regards to re-signing stars in their prime, then we as fans of a high high revenue team have a right to not be on board with that. And when I see posters rack and stack future payroll and then say - well the tax limit is $X so they only have $Y to spend - that is just not true. They can spend more than $Y if the right guy came up - and as supporters of a high revenue (among the 3 highest) it's something fans can rightly demand.

 

Actually, the Rays did a great job tying up Longoria early. They didn't do so well with Matt Moore, but they did lock him up early and wisely traded him just in time.

[sk7326]

Actually, the Rays did a great job tying up Longoria early. They didn't do so well with Matt Moore, but they did lock him up early and wisely traded him just in time.

 

I think getting Betts for his prime is common sense - the numbers, who cares ultimately? If it is a priority the team can make it so.

[moonslav59]

I think getting Betts for his prime is common sense - the numbers, who cares ultimately? If it is a priority the team can make it so.

 

It should be our top priority with trying to lock up Sale the second priority.

[Kimmi]

But Kimmi at the helm, Sox would have #1 farm system every year. AAA team would be better than Sox.

 

No we wouldn't, because I would not be able to build a #1 farm.

 

But with Ben still at the helm, we would have a top farm system AND a contending team.

[a700hitter]

No we wouldn't, because I would not be able to build a #1 farm.

 

But with Ben still at the helm, we would have a top farm system AND a contending team.

Ben couldn't manage to cobble together a contending team with a mere $200 million payroll.

[cp176]

Listen, the team has run its ship well. All I was pointing out was ... if this team is making Tampa Bay type of decisions with regards to re-signing stars in their prime, then we as fans of a high high revenue team have a right to not be on board with that. And when I see posters rack and stack future payroll and then say - well the tax limit is $X so they only have $Y to spend - that is just not true. They can spend more than $Y if the right guy came up - and as supporters of a high revenue (among the 3 highest) it's something fans can rightly demand.

 

I really think that you are right.

[moonslav59]

What cliff?

 

Our best two players are our youngest two players (20 & 22 years old).

 

Devers & Beni

[Fan_since_Boggs]

What cliff?

 

Our best two players are our youngest two players (20 & 22 years old).

 

Devers & Beni

 

That's right, and that is one of my points. This team can be very strong in 2020 and beyond but they will need to develop or acquire starting pitching to stay competitive. Enter Jay Groome, who looks sensational, and a few others. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Red Sox draft another arm in the first round of the 2018 draft.

[Bellhorn04]

What cliff?

 

Our best two players are our youngest two players (20 & 22 years old).

 

Devers & Beni

 

Ha, just a few days ago you had Beni as a platoon player.

[moonslav59]

That's right, and that is one of my points. This team can be very strong in 2020 and beyond but they will need to develop or acquire starting pitching to stay competitive. Enter Jay Groome, who looks sensational, and a few others. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Red Sox draft another arm in the first round of the 2018 draft.

 

(I was being tongue and cheek.)