Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Interesting if Franco takes it - it's an obvious move for Tampa but that's probably shortchanging him given what he'd likely clear in arbitration .

 

He won't take it IMO.

Posted
He won't take it IMO.

 

At $150-200, I'd doubt it myself. That said, a deal could still get him into FA at a younger age than Baez is - so who knows?

Posted
“It became clear as it unfolded that the market was going to take him to a point that we didn’t feel was the best use of our resources,” Bloom said. “We were certainly fighting our emotions on that the whole way because of how highly we think of him and how much we enjoyed having him here.

 

 

When I first read this bold-faced (the type, not mine), I thought it was a quiz; I actually thought it was about Schwarber, with a pending announcement he'd just signed elsewhere... then I thought it was from the Mookie trade... Seriously, it could be a stock press release from any GM or club about any guy they're walking away from.

Posted
When I first read this bold-faced (the type, not mine), I thought it was a quiz; I actually thought it was about Schwarber, with a pending announcement he'd just signed elsewhere... then I thought it was from the Mookie trade... Seriously, it could be a stock press release from any GM or club about any guy they're walking away from.

 

It does seem like a "stock" statement many GMs use.

Posted
Right - the QO was a no brainer. I think the Red Sox would have been very happy with Rodriguez coming back for 1/18.6M. I think the 4th year is where the deal started to get too rich and the 5th year was just the cherry on the sundae. Good on Rodriguez though - I think that deal is perfectly reasonable for both sides. I was a little curious whether Rodriguez would bet on himself or not - but given his health issues, 5 years of life changing money is really enticing.

 

The article also mentioned the uncertainty of labor negotiation as an impetus leading to the signing. E Rod may look like a genius if there's sever restriction(s) imposed on major league teams going forward (lesser threshold for luxury tax, additional non financial penalties for signing FA, etc)

Posted

CBA fight will be interesting.

 

There's no doubt the owners took advantage of players' union the last go around. Increase in revenue outpaced the salaries but the deal did not reflect it.

 

Owners will bring up the COVID and the lost season in 2020. They shut down the minor league payroll. They limited team travel and were responsible only for 60 game season worth of salaries. Just not sure how much money they lost.

Posted
CBA fight will be interesting.

 

There's no doubt the owners took advantage of players' union the last go around. Increase in revenue outpaced the salaries but the deal did not reflect it.

 

Owners will bring up the COVID and the lost season in 2020. They shut down the minor league payroll. They limited team travel and were responsible only for 60 game season worth of salaries. Just not sure how much money they lost.

 

The savings they are getting from reducing the minors should help the union's side.

Posted
We already know that the owners were seeking to lower the tax threshold to 180 million and the players said that was a non-starter.
Posted
The savings they are getting from reducing the minors should help the union's side.

 

Exactly, owners may not have lost as much as they want us to believe. Many expenses went away during 2020.

Posted (edited)

Players' salaries are well-known. All the owners have to do to prove they are bargaining in good faith is to open their books. They don't. All they have to do to prove their losses in 2020 (which a number of sources deny) is to open their books. They don't. No rational person should believe a thing they say or claim.

 

(Manfred says the clubs "should do everything humanly possible" to reach an agreement. Apparently, revealing your finances is not "humanly possible."

Edited by jad
Posted
Marcus Semien seems like a player you just can’t let get away this winter .

Marcus Semien is a fine player but should a team go, say, six years and $144 million for a 31-year-old middle infielder who has posted an OPS+ above 100 only twice in his nine-year MLB career?

Posted
Marcus Semien is a fine player but should a team go, say, six years and $144 million for a 31-year-old middle infielder who has posted an OPS+ above 100 only twice in his nine-year MLB career?

 

Why not use projected WAR?

Posted (edited)
Why not use projected WAR?

Where are the projected WAR for 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027?

 

On the other hand, Marcus Semien is exactly the age Robinson Cano was in December 2013 when the latter signed a 10-year, $240 contract with Seattle.

 

FWIW at the time of the signing, Cano had posted 44.4 bWAR in 1,374 games while Semien has posted 28.7 bWAR in 1,020 games.

 

Cano posted 23.5 bWAR in 704 games over five seasons with the Mariners (who were relieved of half of the suspended Cano's 2018 salary).

Edited by harmony
Posted
Where are the projected WAR for 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027?

 

On the other hand, Marcus Semien is exactly the age Robinson Cano was in December 2013 when the latter signed a 10-year, $240 contract with Seattle.

 

FWIW at the time of the signing, Cano had posted 44.4 bWAR in 1,374 games while Semien has posted 28.7 bWAR in 1,020 games.

 

Cano posted 23.5 bWAR in 704 games over five seasons with the Mariners (who were relieved of half of the suspended Cano's 2018 salary).

 

Look, I agree Semien will be too costly, but you know what I meant by projected WAR - the stat you always use to make a player look better or worse.

 

Finding the worst comp is also a favorite trick of yours,

 

I hope the Ms sign him, and we can watch your tune change in mid note.

Posted

 

Cano posted 23.5 bWAR in 704 games over five seasons with the Mariners (who were relieved of half of the suspended Cano's 2018 salary).

 

Just wondering, is Cano considered a bust for the M's because he got suspended? He had a couple of really good, top-8 MVP years, and the AL's sixth-highest WAR in his five Seattle seasons. What's the formula for equating WAR with salary; in other words, is an AAV of $24 million commensurate with 4.7 WAR per year? At the time his salary was near the top, but 4.7 WAR is never in the Top 10 for position players.

Posted
CBA fight will be interesting.

 

There's no doubt the owners took advantage of players' union the last go around. Increase in revenue outpaced the salaries but the deal did not reflect it.

 

Owners will bring up the COVID and the lost season in 2020. They shut down the minor league payroll. They limited team travel and were responsible only for 60 game season worth of salaries. Just not sure how much money they lost.

 

Yes, Tony Clark had his lunch handed to him last time around. He should have been fired.

Posted
He should IMHO.

 

Hard to say no to a guaranteed 200M. I think guys like him are just built a little different. At some point, it's not about the $$$, it's about his standing among other players. The goal is to have a certain level of contract, not to have lifetime savings.

Posted
Marcus Semien is a fine player but should a team go, say, six years and $144 million for a 31-year-old middle infielder who has posted an OPS+ above 100 only twice in his nine-year MLB career?

 

No.

Posted
There have been lots of discussions on here surrounding the Oakland A's selloff. MLBTR has a good breakdown.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/11/how-many-core-players-are-the-athletics-preparing-to-trade.html

 

Maybe they'll keep more players than we'd like?

 

They have so many that fit our needs that they could keep 80% and we could still get 2 helpful players.

 

I'd focus on Montas & Trivino.

 

Bassit & Manaea are one year guys. Less costly but less useful.

Posted
Hard to say no to a guaranteed 200M. I think guys like him are just built a little different. At some point, it's not about the $$$, it's about his standing among other players. The goal is to have a certain level of contract, not to have lifetime savings.

 

Oh yeah, you're absolutely right.

 

But the man could get injured next year and it's all gone.

 

Players need to listen more to their accountants and less to their agents.

Posted
They have so many that fit our needs that they could keep 80% and we could still get 2 helpful players.

 

I'd focus on Montas & Trivino.

 

Bassit & Manaea are one year guys. Less costly but less useful.

 

From the article: Montas, for instance, is probably the least likely of the “big five” members of the arbitration class to be moved.

Posted
From the article: Montas, for instance, is probably the least likely of the “big five” members of the arbitration class to be moved.

 

Because he has 2 years, and they can "spread it out" by trading him next winter or at the deadline.

Posted
Oh yeah, you're absolutely right.

 

But the man could get injured next year and it's all gone.

 

Players need to listen more to their accountants and less to their agents.

 

I'd be happy to make do with $5M. Anything after that is just a Scrooge McDuck lifestyle of swimming in gold coins.

Posted
I'd be happy to make do with $5M. Anything after that is just a Scrooge McDuck lifestyle of swimming in gold coins.

 

And I'm so humble I'd settle for being a mega-rich person's accountant.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Red Sox community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...