2017/18 Hot Stove Thread

[moonslav59]

Neither were traditional FA signings.

 

I know that, but my point was that people said, back then, that teams were waiting to sign big free agents until after the Stanton and Othani decisions were made. They were made long ago.

 

Still, nothing but the sound of crickets...

[harmony]

I know that, but my point was that people said, back then, that teams were waiting to sign big free agents until after the Stanton and Othani decisions were made. They were made long ago.

 

Still, nothing but the sound of crickets...

I suspect much activity is taking place outside public scrutiny.

 

Remember the days before the 24/7 news cycle when we might learn of a signing in the newspaper a day or two later.

[notin]

Just need one domino to fall.

 

Not really.

 

The entire world outside of harmony thinks JD Martinez is dealing with Boston alone. Yet for some reason none of the other hitters are signing...

[moonslav59]

God bless his soul, but Tom Petty said it best...

 

The waiting is the hardest part...

Edited January 19, 2018 by moonslav59

[notin]

Which raises the question, what's the difference between a 'hold out' and an unemployed person?

 

The real question to me is, when does "unemployment" become "retirement"?

[Bellhorn04]

There has to be something a little devious going on. Not even Boras himself expected to have Martinez, Hosmer, Moustakas and Arrieta still unsigned on January 19. He'll have something to say about it all at some point, I expect.

[moonslav59]

There has to be something a little devious going on. Not even Boras himself expected to have Martinez, Hosmer, Moustakas and Arrieta still unsigned on January 19. He'll have something to say about it all at some point, I expect.

 

If they all sign for about their expected numbers, I'm not sure anything "devious" happened.

 

It does make you wonder....

[Nick]

If they all sign for about their expected numbers, I'm not sure anything "devious" happened.

 

It does make you wonder....

 

Is it possible decision makers are tired of Borass schtick? At some point will he be accused of conflict of interest charge? How many top tier talent can he represent at once? How can he not prioritize his clients?

[mvp 78]

I know that, but my point was that people said, back then, that teams were waiting to sign big free agents until after the Stanton and Othani decisions were made. They were made long ago.

 

Still, nothing but the sound of crickets...

 

I think it's FA's that set the market, not trades or IFA's.

[mvp 78]

If they all sign for about their expected numbers, I'm not sure anything "devious" happened.

 

It does make you wonder....

 

It's hard to say right now. I think the biggest factor is the dumb luxury tax threshold. I understand having one, but I think the threshold should be much higher. A lower threshold will depress wages (and we all know our cable bills or tickets or concessions aren't getting cheaper).

[mvp 78]

Is it possible decision makers are tired of Borass schtick? At some point will he be accused of conflict of interest charge? How many top tier talent can he represent at once? How can he not prioritize his clients?

 

That's not what a conflict of interest is tho.

[Bellhorn04]

That's not what a conflict of interest is tho.

 

It's not inconceivable that Boras could have conflicting interests with his clients.

[harmony]

It's not inconceivable that Boras could have conflicting interests with his clients.

Scott Boras undoubtedly has a conflict of interest with many of his clients but I suspect Boras informs each prospective client of the potential conflicts, asks the player to sign a waiver and advises the player to seek independent counsel on that narrow issue.

 

Boras is a licensed attorney in California but I assume the agent contract Boras offers to players clearly states that he is the player's agent, not the player's attorney. Different rules apply.

[mvp 78]

A good read on why the FA is a little slow this year.

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/01/19/free-agent-market-jd-martinez-eric-hosmer-jake-arrieta-yu-darvish

[Spudboy]

A good read on why the FA is a little slow this year.

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/01/19/free-agent-market-jd-martinez-eric-hosmer-jake-arrieta-yu-darvish

 

I like that article.

 

I have said this before, I just don't see these guys as "transformational" players. Their agents may blow smoke up their asses and inflate their egos, but they are mostly a flawed group.

 

No way JDM is worth 5/125.

 

Whatever.

 

Glad we got Moreland back. At least he is worth his contract.

[cp176]

A good read on why the FA is a little slow this year.

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/01/19/free-agent-market-jd-martinez-eric-hosmer-jake-arrieta-yu-darvish

 

 

Wow - revenue sharing guaranteeing profitability to all irrespective of what the actual product on the field looks like. That was a good read. I could go off on a wild tangent right now but I don't want Hitch to get upset with me. I'm really glad that someone in their infinite wisdom is willing to help out some of these mega rich losers though. It is the right thing to do. lol

[Hitch]

Yup agreed. It's just not a very good list of players this year, and next year is a huge one. That's why I hold up hope we get JD for a very reasonable amount. The market is depressed at the top end this year which is very handy for us.

 

edit: Me cp? Now you HAVE TO go for it.

[cp176]

Yup agreed. It's just not a very good list of players this year, and next year is a huge one. That's why I hold up hope we get JD for a very reasonable amount. The market is depressed at the top end this year which is very handy for us.

 

edit: Me cp? Now you HAVE TO go for it.

 

Not gonna budge one inch -

[Hitch]

If it's about free market principles helping a sport/club thrive or not, I think there is a very interesting discussion to be had there, without even touching politics.

[harmony]

Boston Herald columnist Michael Silverman tweets that the Red Sox have offered J.D. Martinez "roughly $125 million over five years":

 

 

I wonder what the best offer is.

[Bellhorn04]

Boston Herald columnist Michael Silverman tweets that the Red Sox have offered J.D. Martinez "roughly $125 million over five years":

 

 

I wonder what the best offer is.

 

You shouldn't have to wonder any more.

[harmony]

You shouldn't have to wonder any more.

What team do you think has made the best offer to date?

[cp176]

You shouldn't have to wonder any more.

 

No one outside of the parties involved really know. The suggestions by writers that I have read have been all over the place. Roughly 125 million - really - What does that even really mean. If the offer went roughly from 100 to 125 all of a sudden, that tells me that someone is trying to scoop a story before they really know what the actual facts might be. One thing all Red Sox fans here seem to agree on is that the Red Sox probably have laid out the best offer to date and that there really isn't some mystery team scheming in the weeds waiting to pounce.

[bkzwhitestrican]

I have no issue with a luxury tax. It's meant to keep teams with larger markets from gaining a competitive advantage just because of their geography. The problem I have is with teams who don't spend at all. If you're gonna punish teams who spend too much, you should also punish teams who don't spend enough. Why should teams like LA, NY and Boston subsidize smaller market teams just so they can put out s*** lineups so that their owners can pocket an extra 20 mill?? Edited January 19, 2018 by bkzwhitestrican

[harmony]

Boston Herald columnist Michael Silverman tweets that the Red Sox have offered J.D. Martinez "roughly $125 million over five years":

 

 

I wonder what the best offer is.

From ESPN staff writer Scott Lauber this morning:

It might take a few more weeks, perhaps even stretching into spring training, but it still makes the most sense for everyone involved that the Red Sox and Martinez get together on a deal for, say, six years and $180 million.

 

Both sides need each other too much for it not to happen.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/53867/are-the-red-sox-gonna-sign-j-d-martinez-or-what-heres-what-we-know

[cp176]

I have no issue with a luxury tax. It's meant to keep teams with larger markets from gaining a competitive advantage just because of their geography. The problem I have is with teams who don't spend at all. If you're gonna punish teams who spend too much, you should also punish teams who don't spend enough. Why should teams like LA, NY and Boston subsidize smaller market teams just so they can put out s*** lineups so that their owners can pocket an extra 20 mill??

 

An excellent question! Lay an answer on him Hitch. You know what mine might be due to the fact that I am a card carrying capitalist.

[Bellhorn04]

From ESPN staff writer Scott Lauber this morning:

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/53867/are-the-red-sox-gonna-sign-j-d-martinez-or-what-heres-what-we-know

 

I will be bold enough to predict that Martinez is not getting any $180 million.

 

As you have said, MLBTR is pretty good with their predictions, and I think their prediction of 6/$150 is as high as anyone is going to go.

[moonslav59]

I have no issue with a luxury tax. It's meant to keep teams with larger markets from gaining a competitive advantage just because of their geography. The problem I have is with teams who don't spend at all. If you're gonna punish teams who spend too much, you should also punish teams who don't spend enough. Why should teams like LA, NY and Boston subsidize smaller market teams just so they can put out s*** lineups so that their owners can pocket an extra 20 mill??

 

I get your point and don't necessarily disagree, but what if that team making that "extra $20M" thanks to larger market teams paying them off still makes just a small fraction of the profit the big teams make?

 

In what other business besides sports do people play (on the road) in front of millions of people and viewers and not get a cent from the gate or TV package?

 

I always felt like the gate and TV money should be split 505-50 between the home and away teams. Big market teams would still make more as half their games are in their market, but the split would be more fair in several ways.

 

Teams might start complaining when they walk away NY City with a big pay check and then go on a road trip to Oakland and make peanuts.

 

[mvp 78]

@jcmccaffrey

 

Ortiz also said he sees a little of himself in Rafael Devers

[mvp 78]

I have no issue with a luxury tax. It's meant to keep teams with larger markets from gaining a competitive advantage just because of their geography. The problem I have is with teams who don't spend at all. If you're gonna punish teams who spend too much, you should also punish teams who don't spend enough. Why should teams like LA, NY and Boston subsidize smaller market teams just so they can put out s*** lineups so that their owners can pocket an extra 20 mill??

Revenue sharing and the luxury tax are different things tho.