Will The MLB Suspend The 2020 season

[notin]

Which leads me to wonder why you think we were talking about Crawford in the first place? LOL

 

I jumped in midstream on that. Didn’t look back. Looking back is for slackers...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Crawford might be at the top of my list of least favorite Red Sox players.

 

Totally agree. Never saw a Red Sox batter in so many 0-2 counts. I thought he needed to get his eyes checked, because it looked like he couldn't see the ball... like that soft liner he slid past that ended the season.

[Michigan adam]

Their agreement did not foresee games with no fans, or at least allows for that language. I would not be shocked at all if there is no season at all. If you forget all the auditing talk, most experts estimate no fans costs the owners 40% of revenue. Players need to take their 1/162 of their of their season salary game day check and reduce it by 40%. Status quo achieved. I have no issue reducing the 40% cut to 30%, or making a simple statement that salaries cannot be reduced below the 1/162th of minimum salary . This gives a small bone to low salary players. Let the owners take it on the chin some, but players have to give too.

[jad]

Their agreement did not foresee games with no fans, or at least allows for that language. I would not be shocked at all if there is no season at all. If you forget all the auditing talk, most experts estimate no fans costs the owners 40% of revenue. Players need to take their 1/162 of their of their season salary game day check and reduce it by 40%. Status quo achieved. I have no issue reducing the 40% cut to 30%, or making a simple statement that salaries cannot be reduced below the 1/162th of minimum salary . This gives a small bone to low salary players. Let the owners take it on the chin some, but players have to give too.

 

But when the owners have unexpected bonanza profits, do they share those with the players?

 

In any case, I agree there likely will be no season. There was also some REALLY bad news today for sports fans wanting sports to 'open up'. Five Alabama football players tested positive. (Unless this is an aberration, and it may well be, NCAA football is in serious trouble. And if this is an indication of what may well happen for other sports ... well, we know the consequences.)

[Michigan adam]

Who has all of the debt. Who has almost all of the risk. Players have a short shelf life...yes. But owners have massive expenses, like stadium repairs, debt service, etc. All of the scouts and coaches still had the same job to do in preparation and from what I have heard, still got paid. The owners have to pay that. Player salaries are a large percentage of total costs, but certainly not 100%. Their game day costs are somewhat driven by games played, with the profit margin on that stuff is huge, making a loss of concessions for instance a huge loss. I don't hear these problems in the other sports. The players want no cap and "guaranteed" contracts...these are the penalties for that. If there was a cap at say 50 % of revenue then the cap would fall 40% next year and many many contracts would be torn up and redone at a fraction of the previous value. Unemployment is near 15%. Players may be next. Hope their fine with $$700-900 checks like the rest of us.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Who has all of the debt. Who has almost all of the risk. Players have a short shelf life...yes. But owners have massive expenses, like stadium repairs, debt service, etc. All of the scouts and coaches still had the same job to do in preparation and from what I have heard, still got paid. The owners have to pay that. Player salaries are a large percentage of total costs, but certainly not 100%. Their game day costs are somewhat driven by games played, with the profit margin on that stuff is huge, making a loss of concessions for instance a huge loss. I don't hear these problems in the other sports. The players want no cap and "guaranteed" contracts...these are the penalties for that. If there was a cap at say 50 % of revenue then the cap would fall 40% next year and many many contracts would be torn up and redone at a fraction of the previous value. Unemployment is near 15%. Players may be next. Hope their fine with $$700-900 checks like the rest of us.

 

Players already get guaranteed salaries from agreed-upon contracts even if they're injured all season or have a bad year. Business owners own businesses to make profits, and if they don't they make changes. One may be the same that a lot of businesses are unfortunately facing these days.

[notin]

Based on his play for the Rays , Crawford seemed like a good acquisition at the time. Unfortunately, it did not work out . It happens. The current allegations certainly do raise questions about his character.

 

Crawford was coming off an MVP-caliber season and the Sox were making zero headway with Ellsbury/Boras. He did make a lot of sense as a target, especially since retaining Ellsbury looked less likely by the day.

 

But he simply did not pan out.

 

As for least favorite Sox player, I’m still more down on Sandoval than Crawford...

[jad]

Who has all of the debt. Who has almost all of the risk. Players have a short shelf life...yes. But owners have massive expenses, like stadium repairs, debt service, etc. All of the scouts and coaches still had the same job to do in preparation and from what I have heard, still got paid. The owners have to pay that. Player salaries are a large percentage of total costs, but certainly not 100%. Their game day costs are somewhat driven by games played, with the profit margin on that stuff is huge, making a loss of concessions for instance a huge loss. I don't hear these problems in the other sports. The players want no cap and "guaranteed" contracts...these are the penalties for that. If there was a cap at say 50 % of revenue then the cap would fall 40% next year and many many contracts would be torn up and redone at a fraction of the previous value. Unemployment is near 15%. Players may be next. Hope their fine with $$700-900 checks like the rest of us.

 

OMG! Owners have DEBT!!! And, while their franchises soar in value, they sometimes do not make profits in addition to that. And they lose CONCESSIONS!!! My God, they may actually have to tap into their billions in off-shore bank accounts to feed their families. (I now see the error of my ways.)

[notin]

OMG! Owners have DEBT!!! And, while their franchises soar in value, they sometimes do not make profits in addition to that. And they lose CONCESSIONS!!! My God, they may actually have to tap into their billions in off-shore bank accounts to feed their families. (I now see the error of my ways.)

 

They can always apply for food stamps. Although I believe you’re limited to domestic caviar over imported.

 

But, hey, we all have to tighten our belts sometimes...

[moonslav59]

Crawford was coming off an MVP-caliber season and the Sox were making zero headway with Ellsbury/Boras. He did make a lot of sense as a target, especially since retaining Ellsbury looked less likely by the day.

 

But he simply did not pan out.

 

As for least favorite Sox player, I’m still more down on Sandoval than Crawford...

 

I hated the Crawford signing from day one. I called him a "glorified platoon player" whose contract would "drag us down for many years."

 

He had a .697 OPS vs LHPs before we signed him.

 

Plus, his.817 OPS vs RHPs was not all that great to begin with.

 

(FYI, before coming to Boston, Pablito had a .708 OPS vs LHPs and .850 vs RHPs.)

 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Crawford was coming off an MVP-caliber season and the Sox were making zero headway with Ellsbury/Boras. He did make a lot of sense as a target, especially since retaining Ellsbury looked less likely by the day.

 

But he simply did not pan out.

 

As for least favorite Sox player, I’m still more down on Sandoval than Crawford...

 

This makes for a great debate: the Sox suckiest soldier of fortune (theirs)... and misfortune (ours). Panda wins by default since we're still paying him (with a 5 Mil buyout). But stats are close -- Crawford OBP .292, Sandoval .286. Yes, those are On Base Averages, not Batting Averages. Carl was somehow a positive WAR here at 0.9, Pablo a negative -1.6. Cue the value of a few stolen bases vs. a few stolen calories, but both swiped fans' time watching them.

 

Crawford may have been more disappointing because coming in he seemed to have more respect from Sox he tortured while a Ray. Expectations weren't maybe quite as high for Big Panda after he broke a belt bending over for a grounder in spring training.

[moonslav59]

This makes for a great debate: the Sox suckiest soldier of fortune (theirs)... and misfortune (ours). Panda wins by default since we're still paying him (with a 5 Mil buyout). But stats are close -- Crawford OBP .292, Sandoval .286. Yes, those are On Base Averages, not Batting Averages. Carl was somehow a positive WAR here at 0.9, Pablo a negative -1.6. Cue the value of a few stolen bases vs. a few stolen calories, but both swiped fans' time watching them.

 

Crawford may have been more disappointing because coming in he seemed to have more respect from Sox he tortured while a Ray. Expectations weren't maybe quite as high for Big Panda after he broke a belt bending over for a grounder in spring training.

 

Crawford cost us more and when you adjust for inflation, it was significantly more money and two more years.

 

To me, Crawford was worse, but getting the Dodger to take him off our hands lessened the blow enough to make the Pablo signing worse in the overall outlook, The other redeeming factor was that having to give up AGon to be able to dump CC ended up being a godsend in itself. AGon declined pretty quickly, despite 3 decent (but still subpar for him) seasons in LA.

 

When I look at our worst signings, I don't count the trades that happened afterwards.

 

Here is my rankings of our worst 20 major signings (I may have missed someone):

 

1. Crawford

2. Sandoval

3. Castillo

4. Renteria

5. Price

6. HRam

7. Lugo

8. Avery

9. Dice-K

10. J Clark

11. Matt Young

12. S Drew (the second signing)

13. Offerman

14. JT Snow

15. A Dawson

16. B Jenks

17. M Clement

18. Lackey

19. JD Drew

20. AGon/Smoltz/Penny

 

[Bellhorn04]

Crawford cost us more and when you adjust for inflation, it was significantly more money and two more years.

 

To me, Crawford was worse, but getting the Dodger to take him off our hands lessened the blow enough to make the Pablo signing worse in the overall outlook, The other redeeming factor was that having to give up AGon to be able to dump CC ended up being a godsend in itself. AGon declined pretty quickly, despite 3 decent (but still subpar for him) seasons in LA.

 

When I look at our worst signings, I don't count the trades that happened afterwards.

 

Here is my rankings of our worst 20 major signings (I may have missed someone):

 

1. Crawford

2. Sandoval

3. Castillo

4. Renteria

5. Price

6. HRam

7. Lugo

8. Avery

9. Dice-K

10. J Clark

11. Matt Young

12. S Drew (the second signing)

13. Offerman

14. JT Snow

15. A Dawson

16. B Jenks

17. M Clement

18. Lackey

19. JD Drew

20. AGon/Smoltz/Penny

 

 

J. T. Snow at #14? His contract was 2 million dollars.

[Michigan adam]

OMG players can't make 50 bazillion dollars a game this year. How will support their family. These players have a serious case of lost reality. Owners spent at least hundreds of millions on their franchises. Players spent what? Owners support hundreds of people, and pay them. Players support their pose's. Owners make a profit most of the time, but players are guaranteed to make theirs almost all of the time, with no risk of loss. If they have to slum it with the rest of us and owners have to lose a few millions dollars this year then so be it. If both want to make the best of a bad situation and both sacrifice some then we fans win. Absolutely unrealistic for owners to play full game checks IMHO.

[Kimmi]

Crawford was coming off an MVP-caliber season and the Sox were making zero headway with Ellsbury/Boras. He did make a lot of sense as a target, especially since retaining Ellsbury looked less likely by the day.

 

But he simply did not pan out.

 

As for least favorite Sox player, I’m still more down on Sandoval than Crawford...

 

Sandoval made a lot of sense too, though as with Crawford, the contract was too long.

[jad]

They can always apply for food stamps. Although I believe you’re limited to domestic caviar over imported.

 

But, hey, we all have to tighten our belts sometimes...

 

Crawford cost us more and when you adjust for inflation, it was significantly more money and two more years.

 

To me, Crawford was worse, but getting the Dodger to take him off our hands lessened the blow enough to make the Pablo signing worse in the overall outlook, The other redeeming factor was that having to give up AGon to be able to dump CC ended up being a godsend in itself. AGon declined pretty quickly, despite 3 decent (but still subpar for him) seasons in LA.

 

When I look at our worst signings, I don't count the trades that happened afterwards.

 

Here is my rankings of our worst 20 major signings (I may have missed someone):

 

1. Crawford

2. Sandoval

3. Castillo

4. Renteria

5. Price

6. HRam

7. Lugo

8. Avery

9. Dice-K

10. J Clark

11. Matt Young

12. S Drew (the second signing)

13. Offerman

14. JT Snow

15. A Dawson

16. B Jenks

17. M Clement

18. Lackey

19. JD Drew

20. AGon/Smoltz/Penny

 

 

Well, JD Drew and Agon gave the RS EXACTLY what anyone would have expected. Drew was a .280 hitter and continued to do that. I've never understood the negative reactions toward AGon (I believe he ALSO hit pretty much his career average-- .299 was it? Nothing wrong with that) ... well, I need to qualify that. I think I do know why Boston fans did not like AGon (whereas SanDiego fans and LA fans liked him) ...but it has nothing to do with baseball performance.

[Thunder]

I've been away for awhile so let me say this about the MLB negotiations: I don't think there will be a season, and I don't think the league can recover from this. They might not die this year, but the inability to put together a plan that both sides can agree on to play baseball in 2020 will eventually lead to the demise and destruction of the league. Unlike the strike in 1993, MLB no longer has the fan base to survive with, not with NBA popularity at an all time high, and NFL now America's favorite sport. And, both the players and owners are equally to blame in all of this. I don't know even know if I'm going to be a baseball fan after this. The last few weeks have been an utter disgrace, and anybody even remotely associated with the negotiations at all should be ashamed

[moonslav59]

J. T. Snow at #14? His contract was 2 million dollars.

 

You think anyone lower on my list deserves to be above him?

 

I'm wondering if some below him even belong on this sort of list.

[moonslav59]

Well, JD Drew and Agon gave the RS EXACTLY what anyone would have expected. Drew was a .280 hitter and continued to do that. I've never understood the negative reactions toward AGon (I believe he ALSO hit pretty much his career average-- .299 was it? Nothing wrong with that) ... well, I need to qualify that. I think I do know why Boston fans did not like AGon (whereas SanDiego fans and LA fans liked him) ...but it has nothing to do with baseball performance.

 

I'd say the last 3-4 guys on this list may not belong on it.

 

As for AGon, I expected a little better, but he did not do bad at all. His role in the whole chickengate episode was never clearly defined, and I'm not trying to label him as a cancer, but I have to say I was so happy we dumped CC, I wasn't upset we lost AGon and his salary, too. (Then, there was Beckett.)

 

[notin]

Sandoval made a lot of sense too, though as with Crawford, the contract was too long.

 

I was vehemently anti-Sandoval and NEVER thought he made sense. Granted, my choice that off-season (the late Luis Valbuena) wasn’t all that much better, but at least his ineffectiveness was more affordable...

[Bellhorn04]

You think anyone lower on my list deserves to be above him?

 

I'm wondering if some below him even belong on this sort of list.

 

The list is too long, I think.

 

For me the amount of wasted money is a big factor. Snow's 2 million dollars was a very insignificant amount.

[Bellhorn04]

I'd say the last 3-4 guys on this list may not belong on it.

 

As for AGon, I expected a little better, but he did not do bad at all. His role in the whole chickengate episode was never clearly defined, and I'm not trying to label him as a cancer, but I have to say I was so happy we dumped CC, I wasn't upset we lost AGon and his salary, too. (Then, there was Beckett.)

 

 

If your list is meant to be restricted to free agent signings, AGon shouldn't be there anyway.

[Bellhorn04]

If it was me doing the list I'd probably add back 25 million if the guy was instrumental in getting a ring - that applies to Price, Lackey & Drew. But not Lugo or Dice-K. Well, maybe 10 million for Dice-K.

[Kimmi]

I was vehemently anti-Sandoval and NEVER thought he made sense. Granted, my choice that off-season (the late Luis Valbuena) wasn’t all that much better, but at least his ineffectiveness was more affordable...

 

Why didn't he make sense? Did Valbuena make more sense? Probably, but doesn't mean that Pablo made no sense. We needed a 3rd baseman. Pablo was arguably the best 3rd baseman available during that off season. The contract didn't make a lot of sense because of the number of years, but the player made sense.

[Kimmi]

If it was me doing the list I'd probably add back 25 million if the guy was instrumental in getting a ring - that applies to Price, Lackey & Drew. But not Lugo or Dice-K. Well, maybe 10 million for Dice-K.

 

I would argue about a few of the guys on Moon's list. I agree it's too long. I still don't understand why JD Drew gets so little love. The contract was not that bad from the get go (one year too long), especially compared to what other corner outfielders were getting that year.

[Bellhorn04]

I would argue about a few of the guys on Moon's list. I agree it's too long. I still don't understand why JD Drew gets so little love. The contract was not that bad from the get go (one year too long), especially compared to what other corner outfielders were getting that year.

 

I think Drew's signing was fine too.

[jad]

If it was me doing the list I'd probably add back 25 million if the guy was instrumental in getting a ring - that applies to Price, Lackey & Drew. But not Lugo or Dice-K. Well, maybe 10 million for Dice-K.

 

Without Dice-K's 18 wins, there's no ring that year.

[notin]

Why didn't he make sense? Did Valbuena make more sense? Probably, but doesn't mean that Pablo made no sense. We needed a 3rd baseman. Pablo was arguably the best 3rd baseman available during that off season. The contract didn't make a lot of sense because of the number of years, but the player made sense.

 

 

Despite not being old for a free agent, Sandoval was in decline and asking for a ton of years and money. It was a perfect s*** storm.

 

Valbuena was a stopgap player at best, but never played for anything other than an appropriate contract...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Without Dice-K's 18 wins, there's no ring that year.

 

He drove a few viewers crazy (or bored) with constantly nibbling away from bats, but what bugged me more was how the Red Sox mismanaged him with the American "book" that begins and ends with pitch counts. Dice-K came with the rep -- reputation and repetition -- of throwing hundreds of pitches a day, in game and in between. But once he got here, they changed his successful training regime, and often yanked him from games, when -- to him -- he was just getting warmed up. I know they had their investment to protect, but this wasn't some young starter whose arm Billy Martin would blow out on the old A's staff. Plus, he was likable enough, compared to sourpuss big money "aces" like Lackey and Price.

[notin]

He drove a few viewers crazy (or bored) with constantly nibbling away from bats, but what bugged me more was how the Red Sox mismanaged him with the American "book" that begins and ends with pitch counts. Dice-K came with the rep -- reputation and repetition -- of throwing hundreds of pitches a day, in game and in between. But once he got here, they changed his successful training regime, and often yanked him from games, when -- to him -- he was just getting warmed up. I know they had their investment to protect, but this wasn't some young starter whose arm Billy Martin would blow out on the old A's staff. Plus, he was likable enough, compared to sourpuss big money "aces" like Lackey and Price.

 

Two reasons:

 

1. Daisike did purportedly throw a lot of IP in Japan, but this also created the possibility that he was already overworked.

 

2. Most Japanese teams use 6 man rotations.