A Realistic View at 2020: Part II

[mvp 78]

Your age helps too.

 

My hatred of the Yanks stems a lot from the late Seventies when they were truly hateful.

 

Yanks kinda sucked in the 80’s. I was always more anti-Met until the day my father asked “what’s you second favorite team?” He said it has to be anyone but the Yankees.

 

To me, the Sox slayed that dragon in 04.

[Bellhorn04]

Yanks kinda sucked in the 80’s. I was always more anti-Met until the day my father asked “what’s you second favorite team?” He said it has to be anyone but the Yankees.

 

To me, the Sox slayed that dragon in 04.

 

They did slay the dragon, but for me the 4-1 score in my signature line is a big deal. Every year that goes by without the Yanks winning is a good year for me.

 

What did username? used to say? "I am nourished by their tears", I think it was.

[dgalehouse]

My hatred of the Yankees had a lot to do with the obnoxiousness of their fans back in the day . They not only bragged about having the best team ( which was usually true ) , they boasted of having the best fans ( this was never true ) , the best ballpark ( arguable , but doubtful ) , the best announcers ( not true ) and even the best grounds crew ( they actually claimed their crew got the tarp on and off the quickest) . With the Sox success starting in 2004 , the hatred has abated somewhat ( " A little bit " , as Aaron Boone constantly says. ).

[Kimmi]

Right, but what's the value of a Hall of Fame, face-of-the-franchise, on and off the field winner, for a brand in an entertainment industry? Even if we look at the bottom line that ostensibly generates the most revenue -- contributing to a winning product in the standings -- it's even debatable that three other good players are worth as much a rare talent like Betts.

 

For example, in sheer analytics terms, Betts' 2019 WAR was worth 6.9 (and that was an average Mookie year). Three others who will be in high demand from his coming free agent class -- Starling Marte, Trevor Bauer and Kirby Yates -- combined for a 7.1 WAR. Would anyone pay 300 million combined for those three for the next decade?

 

The thing about signing players other than Betts is that you can sign them for much shorter contracts. You're not going to sign them for 10 years. If a player doesn't work out, it will be much easier to absorb that contract.

[Kimmi]

My hatred of the Yankees had a lot to do with the obnoxiousness of their fans back in the day . They not only bragged about having the best team ( which was usually true ) , they boasted of having the best fans ( this was never true ) , the best ballpark ( arguable , but doubtful ) , the best announcers ( not true ) and even the best grounds crew ( they actually claimed their crew got the tarp on and off the quickest) . With the Sox success starting in 2004 , the hatred has abated somewhat ( " A little bit " , as Aaron Boone constantly says. ).

 

The Yankees fans are a big reason why I can't stand the Yankees. I don't have to deal with obnoxious Rays fans. I can't stand the Rays or the Os either, but whenever I get even an inkling that I might dislike them more than the Yankees, all it takes is for me to watch a Yankees game.

[mvp 78]

I get lip from Yankees and Rays fans down here. Lame. Yes, the Yankees fans are always worse.

[Maxbialystock]

Never have hated the Yankees. I root against them of course, the the simple fact is you can't have a great rivalry with a weak franchise. They've won 27 World Series, but have taken a back seat to the Sox in the John Henry era, and what could be sweeter than that? My Uncle Ned was a life long Sox fan who died at age 90 before the Sox broke the 86 year curse. He had every reason to be a Yankee hater. I've only been a Sox fan since 1949 and got to see all four WS championships after experiencing a mere 55 years of frustration--a small price to pay.

[jad]

Never have hated the Yankees. I root against them of course, the the simple fact is you can't have a great rivalry with a weak franchise. They've won 27 World Series, but have taken a back seat to the Sox in the John Henry era, and what could be sweeter than that? My Uncle Ned was a life long Sox fan who died at age 90 before the Sox broke the 86 year curse. He had every reason to be a Yankee hater. I've only been a Sox fan since 1949 and got to see all four WS championships after experiencing a mere 55 years of frustration--a small price to pay.

 

I probably didn't start following them (i.e. listening to Curt Gowdy) until about 1955, but yes, I feel your pain! My mother died just before they won the WS, as did the mother of one of my best friends. I called my friend from 3000 miles away just as Foulke was about to throw his last pitch. She got seriously pissed, claiming I was going to jinx it.

[Kimmi]

I get lip from Yankees and Rays fans down here. Lame. Yes, the Yankees fans are always worse.

 

That's right, you are in Rays territory. LOL

 

The Yankees are still the worst.

 

Their players are also obnoxious.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The thing about signing players other than Betts is that you can sign them for much shorter contracts. You're not going to sign them for 10 years. If a player doesn't work out, it will be much easier to absorb that contract.

 

You're right, and for the most part -- at least in Boston -- it seems like we do more absorbing than cheering free agent contracts; Price, Pablo and Hanley immediately come to mind, and there always seems to be someone we're paying to be somewhere else.

 

The Mookie debate -- and we've already been over this all winter -- was if he was the rare kind of talent, athlete and personality you'd want to root for playing Hall of Fame hardball to keep your team in contention for the next decade. A minority of posters still say he is, but few dispute that the Red Sox, as much as any club, could afford him if they so chose.

 

It will be interesting to see the next free agent market through pandemic adjustments. But if anyone still commands top dollar I'll bet on Betts...

[Maxbialystock]

No single player can ever keep a team "in contention" and certainly not Mookie--see the last 2 seasons. A position player is just one of nine guys in the lineup and in the field, and that doesn't even count the importance of pitching.

[dgalehouse]

One of the differences between baseball and most other team sports is that in baseball , no matter how good you are , you still can only hit when your turn comes . Tom Brady can handle the ball on every play , Michael Jordan could always take the big shot , but Mookie Betts has to bat in order . And no pitcher , starter or reliever , can pitch every game . It is very difficult for any one player to keep a team in contention.

[Thunder]

One of the differences between baseball and most other team sports is that in baseball , no matter how good you are , you still can only hit when your turn comes . Tom Brady can handle the ball on every play , Michael Jordan could always take the big shot , but Mookie Betts has to bat in order . And no pitcher , starter or reliever , can pitch every game . It is very difficult for any one player to keep a team in contention.

 

Just ask Mike Trout

[mvp 78]

@peteabe

 

Watching the Sox feed on Periscope — pscp.tv/w/1dRKZZkBzwdKB — and Dave O'Brien said Tim Hyers told him Rafael Devers hit the RF facade during BP. Ortiz would routinely hit balls several rows beyond the visitor bullpen in BP. Can't say I ever saw somebody hit the facade.

[Kimmi]

You're right, and for the most part -- at least in Boston -- it seems like we do more absorbing than cheering free agent contracts; Price, Pablo and Hanley immediately come to mind, and there always seems to be someone we're paying to be somewhere else.

 

The Mookie debate -- and we've already been over this all winter -- was if he was the rare kind of talent, athlete and personality you'd want to root for playing Hall of Fame hardball to keep your team in contention for the next decade. A minority of posters still say he is, but few dispute that the Red Sox, as much as any club, could afford him if they so chose.

 

It will be interesting to see the next free agent market through pandemic adjustments. But if anyone still commands top dollar I'll bet on Betts...

 

If there were a player that I would give a 10 year contract to, it would be Mookie. On the whole, he has a good chance of being worth the contract because of the early years. That's just too much money and too many years for me to commit to one player.

[Kimmi]

No single player can ever keep a team "in contention" and certainly not Mookie--see the last 2 seasons. A position player is just one of nine guys in the lineup and in the field, and that doesn't even count the importance of pitching.

 

One of the differences between baseball and most other team sports is that in baseball , no matter how good you are , you still can only hit when your turn comes . Tom Brady can handle the ball on every play , Michael Jordan could always take the big shot , but Mookie Betts has to bat in order . And no pitcher , starter or reliever , can pitch every game . It is very difficult for any one player to keep a team in contention.

 

Exactly. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

[moonslav59]

If there were a player that I would give a 10 year contract to, it would be Mookie. On the whole, he has a good chance of being worth the contract because of the early years. That's just too much money and too many years for me to commit to one player.

 

Front load the contract, so trading him, if he declines earlier than expected will not be that hard to do.

 

Plus, in this economy, I'm not sure he's going to get the numbers we were throwing around, last winter.

 

I'm not for paying him some absurd amount, but the guy is likely worth $50M a year (in 2019 dollars) for 2-4 years. Let's say he's worth $200M for the first 5 years, do you think paying him $120M for the last 7 years is going to cripple us? (This assuming $320M/12.)

[moonslav59]

Exactly. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

 

That's assuming we even have a basket.

[Kimmi]

Front load the contract, so trading him, if he declines earlier than expected will not be that hard to do.

 

Plus, in this economy, I'm not sure he's going to get the numbers we were throwing around, last winter.

 

I'm not for paying him some absurd amount, but the guy is likely worth $50M a year (in 2019 dollars) for 2-4 years. Let's say he's worth $200M for the first 5 years, do you think paying him $120M for the last 7 years is going to cripple us? (This assuming $320M/12.)

 

$40 mil for one player takes a significant chunk out of your team payroll. Unless you have several quality, cost controlled players to help offset that every year, it's going to be tough to fill the needs in other areas. Whether the Sox can afford it or not, $120 mil is a lot of money to absorb on the back end if Mookie declines more than people expect. Also, for luxury tax purposes, those last 7 years work out to $26.7 mil a year.

 

I just can't get on board with a contract that huge.

[Kimmi]

That's assuming we even have a basket.

 

If we don't have a basket, that would be even less reason to give Mookie that kind of contract.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

$40 mil for one player takes a significant chunk out of your team payroll. Unless you have several quality, cost controlled players to help offset that every year, it's going to be tough to fill the needs in other areas. Whether the Sox can afford it or not, $120 mil is a lot of money to absorb on the back end if Mookie declines more than people expect. Also, for luxury tax purposes, those last 7 years work out to $26.7 mil a year.

 

I just can't get on board with a contract that huge.

 

I understand and have understood all the counter arguments. I'm just looking at history -- and specifically Henry/Warner history -- and unless they're planning on selling soon, it's inevitable that a combo of also-ran seasons and subsequent spotty attendance will see them overpay for some inferior players. Yes, ownership hired Bloom, but there's no way old rich guys are going to suddenly change expectations and all the tried and true strategies that won them four rings.

 

Plus, as a fan, I really enjoy watching and identifying with homegrown prospects who grow into star players with Hall of Fame potential. Perhaps the next guy will be Verdugo or Downs or Wong, but that's more a longshot than the Red Sox signing someone like Lindor or Acuna or Soto in a few years. It's more likely Boston will acquire another big name who becomes an albatross.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Maybe our new hero will be Jonathan Arauz!

 

We now know it won't be Colin McHugh; apparently, he didn't see any mound time available in our loaded rotation.

[Kimmi]

I understand and have understood all the counter arguments. I'm just looking at history -- and specifically Henry/Warner history -- and unless they're planning on selling soon, it's inevitable that a combo of also-ran seasons and subsequent spotty attendance will see them overpay for some inferior players. Yes, ownership hired Bloom, but there's no way old rich guys are going to suddenly change expectations and all the tried and true strategies that won them four rings.

 

Plus, as a fan, I really enjoy watching and identifying with homegrown prospects who grow into star players with Hall of Fame potential. Perhaps the next guy will be Verdugo or Downs or Wong, but that's more a longshot than the Red Sox signing someone like Lindor or Acuna or Soto in a few years. It's more likely Boston will acquire another big name who becomes an albatross.

 

I don't disagree that if the Sox have 2-3 sub par seasons, Henry is likely to react rashly and spend big money for free agents he has no business signing for big money. I also much prefer watching our home grown players over watching superstar free agents coming from other teams. As I said before, if I'm going to give a mega contract to a player, it would be Mookie, not only because of his talents, but because he's one of our own.

 

Ideally, the team would be able to lock guys up for a few years at team friendly costs before they hit free agency. This also offers a young player lifetime security, as is the case with Bogaerts. It's also the case with Sale and the White Sox.

[Kimmi]

It was previously stated that the entire season would have to be played in order for the luxury tax to reset. It turns out that we only need to play through the end of August, until the trade deadline, in order for the tax to reset. That gives the Sox a little more hope for being able to reset.

[Kimmi]

I'm finishing up Speier's book Homegrown (finally).

 

Reading this book has made me like and respect Cherington even more than I already did. Great job Ben.

[oldtimer]

$40 mil for one player takes a significant chunk out of your team payroll. Unless you have several quality, cost controlled players to help offset that every year, it's going to be tough to fill the needs in other areas. Whether the Sox can afford it or not, $120 mil is a lot of money to absorb on the back end if Mookie declines more than people expect. Also, for luxury tax purposes, those last 7 years work out to $26.7 mil a year .

 

I just can't get on board with a contract that huge.

 

Neither can I. I'll stick with the idea of budgeting the salaries for various position players. The goal would be to stay just under the competitive balance tax (possibly exceeding it on occasion).

 

Clearly the most value would be in the up the middle players, first couple of starters and possibly a closer. Budgeting next for starters and then for remaining pitchers and utility players. Players in each category would get a unique percentage if the total available.

 

Risk would be managed by avoiding excessively long contracts and also those based on sentimentality.

 

As far as paying huge salaries that don't fit the budgeted concept, I would not.

As far as taking on high risk long term contracts, I wouldn't do that either.

 

Bring more balance into the apportionment of salaries and reduce risk for more consistency of results.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Neither can I. I'll stick with the idea of budgeting the salaries for various position players. The goal would be to stay just under the competitive balance tax (possibly exceeding it on occasion).

 

Clearly the most value would be in the up the middle players, first couple of starters and possibly a closer. Budgeting next for starters and then for remaining pitchers and utility players. Players in each category would get a unique percentage if the total available.

 

Risk would be managed by avoiding excessively long contracts and also those based on sentimentality.

 

As far as paying huge salaries that don't fit the budgeted concept, I would not.

As far as taking on high risk long term contracts, I wouldn't do that either.

 

Bring more balance into the apportionment of salaries and reduce risk for more consistency of results.

 

Current economics as structured in the MLB basically prevent teams from signing really good players for anything but long term contracts... agents and stars demand it (understandably), and there's always some rich and/or dumb team willing to give an extra year -- or five -- if they really want a guy badly enough.

 

Maybe Boston recruited Bloom specifically to work his low-budget magic (not that they need it), because management has inside knowledge of upcoming -- let's not call it "collusion" -- but "market adjustments"... with a new CBA war looming.

[Kimmi]

Neither can I. I'll stick with the idea of budgeting the salaries for various position players. The goal would be to stay just under the competitive balance tax (possibly exceeding it on occasion).

 

Clearly the most value would be in the up the middle players, first couple of starters and possibly a closer. Budgeting next for starters and then for remaining pitchers and utility players. Players in each category would get a unique percentage if the total available.

 

Risk would be managed by avoiding excessively long contracts and also those based on sentimentality.

 

As far as paying huge salaries that don't fit the budgeted concept, I would not.

As far as taking on high risk long term contracts, I wouldn't do that either.

 

Bring more balance into the apportionment of salaries and reduce risk for more consistency of results.

 

I am totally with you on all of this Oldtimer. Well except for maybe valuing the closer quite so high.

 

If the Sox can reset the tax penalty once every 3 years, then they can afford to go over it during the other years. Of course, being able to reset usually means not paying one player $30+ million for so many years.

[Kimmi]

Current economics as structured in the MLB basically prevent teams from signing really good players for anything but long term contracts... agents and stars demand it (understandably), and there's always some rich and/or dumb team willing to give an extra year -- or five -- if they really want a guy badly enough.

 

Maybe Boston recruited Bloom specifically to work his low-budget magic (not that they need it), because management has inside knowledge of upcoming -- let's not call it "collusion" -- but "market adjustments"... with a new CBA war looming.

 

Farm system, farm system, farm system. A team can do so much without the huge contracts and has so much flexibility if it has that strong foundation to build from.

[Tedballgame]

Bloom will not be paying any one player 40 million a year. That is not how you build a team today. Those contracts cripple the payroll. Lessons have been learned. I don't see him paying anybody over 30 million a year.