Another lost season

[notin]

32 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Its harder to spend money than some believe.  And thats why Im not into all this max efficiency $$/WAR type stuff.  I get the math.  But the whole trading for value to create budget room....BUt theres not an infinite supply of high priced / worth it talent.....Its not like if someone like Soto becomes available again, theres only 3 bidders , with those being the 3 teams that have the most efficient rosters......

Despite how many times people want to high five over all the high priced, underperformers on other teams and take a victory lap for financial flexibility.....that doesnt mean that all we do is need to wait for next free agency and we can go shopping.

FA is usually a bunch of 32 yr old stopgaps.

Far too many times, Ive described free agency as “paying players in their 30s for what they did in their 20s for some other team.”  I stand by that, and I think its primary purpose is PR. It sends a message to fans that money will not be a factor.  The reality too often is ironic, in that it makes money a factor negatively.

There are very few sure things in free agency, and even they often want contracts long enough to surpass the player’s own usefulness.  Does anyone think Juan Soto is going to be useful in 2040?  I think that’s why many teams like to backload these deals.  Less money upfront gives them the ability to surround the superstar talent with better players while he is still at the top of his game.  The later expensive years when said star is much less, might as well pay HIM more because the team is less likely to go anywhere anyway.  And if you get a title or two early on, it was worth it.  But if not, you have probably wasted 10-15 seasons. (A bit harsh, since I’m only considering a title as a successful season.). 
 

That’s why I prefer the extensions to younger players - far less crippling.  Campbell’s AAV is utility infielder money.  And while he might have a few years of high-paid minor league activity (in theory), he’s probably only a financial problem for 2-3 years max, and not even a steep one.  By the time he starts making $10-12 mill or more, that could easily be setup reliever money.  The same cannot be said about Soto, or even Bregman or Alonso and their much shorter deals…

[drewski6]

37 minutes ago, notin said:

Far too many times, Ive described free agency as “paying players in their 30s for what they did in their 20s for some other team.”  I stand by that, and I think its primary purpose is PR. It sends a message to fans that money will not be a factor.  The reality too often is ironic, in that it makes money a factor negatively.

There are very few sure things in free agency, and even they often want contracts long enough to surpass the player’s own usefulness.  Does anyone think Juan Soto is going to be useful in 2040?  I think that’s why many teams like to backload these deals.  Less money upfront gives them the ability to surround the superstar talent with better players while he is still at the top of his game.  The later expensive years when said star is much less, might as well pay HIM more because the team is less likely to go anywhere anyway.  And if you get a title or two early on, it was worth it.  But if not, you have probably wasted 10-15 seasons. (A bit harsh, since I’m only considering a title as a successful season.). 
 

That’s why I prefer the extensions to younger players - far less crippling.  Campbell’s AAV is utility infielder money.  And while he might have a few years of high-paid minor league activity (in theory), he’s probably only a financial problem for 2-3 years max, and not even a steep one.  By the time he starts making $10-12 mill or more, that could easily be setup reliever money.  The same cannot be said about Soto, or even Bregman or Alonso and their much shorter deals…

I dont particularly love or hate the youngster promotions, but what some overlook is how little the lux tax matters and therefore how throw-outable the aav is 

We are not paying Roman whatever his aav is this yr. Ditto all of em.  But like when you extend a young player, you try to structure the actual expenditure in-line with where it would be.

If you sign a guy with 3 pre-arb years, you will pay him like 2.5m yr 1, 3.5 yr2, 4.5 yr 3....but if you take the aav, it misleadingly makes it look like that contract (in the short term) is taking away more opportunity cost than it really is.  Going by the tax hit is, frankly, stupid.

Sure , there will be another shoe to drop.  If the AAV is significantly higher than the actual cash outlay in the early years, that means that the opposite must be true in the back years (thats how averages work).  But theres a justification for that or a rationale, even if it goes bad.

The rationale being like: Im okay paying Bello 20m in the final 2 yrs because those would be free agent years.  Or ARB3 yrs , which are high.  So sure, Bello may be in AAA by then or bought out (at the rate hes going)....But thats a projection going bad, not a counter-point to teams try to structure the actual cash outlay in line with the normal format (pre-arb,pre-arb,pre-arb, arb1,arb2....)...... Nobods is going to make 20m in what would otherwise be a pre-arb year, its just this weirdo thing that people want to go by AAV.  Also, you are absolutely correct to expect and factor in future inflation.

I dont think the red sox are particularly cheap.  I dont think the red sox are where they are because of these pre-breslow extensions.  I think the blame is 100% breslow.  I dont think scaling a team this heavily towards pitching and d is a good idea.

[drewski6]

But my biases are to defend everything not Breslow and s*** on everything Breslow.  But im not the only one with biases, im jsut the most honest about them.

It boggles my mind how some people will defend at all costs anyone currently affiliated and then completely s*** on em once they are gone.  My phone blew up with people talking like cora was awesome one day, to talking about how it was so necessary to turn the page the next. Ditto Betts.  Thats the s*** I roll my eyes at.

[drewski6]

I think people love the aav/lux tax thresholds because it creates a finite amount of resources and makes the exercise more fun.  Like that social media thing where its like $5 burger, $4 chicken sandwhich, $3 ham and cheese.....$4 mac and cheese , $3 fries, $2 lays chips.....$4 beer, $3 lemonade, $2 bottled water , $1 tap water

Build your meal but you only get $8

Its fun.

Telling someone build the best team but be reasonable is more fun than build team no resource limits.....So everyone uses the lux tax threshold so we can all see who can build the best team with a consistent limitation.  So that threshold becomes that consistent upper limit so we are all playing by the same rules.

But it isnt like actually as big of a thing as people make.  The difference between being $1 over the lux limit and $1 under is $2.  I know that (again) after MVP corrected me on how the sweet sweet penalty money is distributed (for a bit of time only, I mistakenly thought that like it was evenly distributed to all non-tax paying teams, so the penalty for being over the line (mark it 0, donnie - lil lebowski joke for you) ....I thought was the forfeiture of that sweet sweet dodger penalty money.....ANd Im happy to see it doesnt work that way.  Because baseball is noncompetitive enough.  And as evidence, I present to you: the american league.

[drewski6]

2 hours ago, notin said:

He said A’s, not Braves…

Not everyone who says As says Braves but everyone who says Braves said A ....little phoenetical joke for you.

[Behindenemylines]

As bad as the Sox offense has been they are still in the wild card picture because of all the American League teams hovering around .500 . With pitching and D they have they can stay in the hunt if they can pick up a bat or two before the trade deadline. I think it is still too early to pull the plug on the season. 

[UtahSox]

26 minutes ago, Behindenemylines said:

As bad as the Sox offense has been they are still in the wild card picture because of all the American League teams hovering around .500 . With pitching and D they have they can stay in the hunt if they can pick up a bat or two before the trade deadline. I think it is still too early to pull the plug on the season. 

Without the 2 guys Sox are counting on being their best players. Crochet and Anthony. 

[moonslav59]

6 hours ago, drewski6 said:

FA is usually a bunch of 32 yr old stopgaps.

This is why the theory of building up your farm and trying to keep the better looking ones under team control into prime makes sense.

[notin]

20 hours ago, Behindenemylines said:

As bad as the Sox offense has been they are still in the wild card picture because of all the American League teams hovering around .500 . With pitching and D they have they can stay in the hunt if they can pick up a bat or two before the trade deadline. I think it is still too early to pull the plug on the season. 

Especially if some of the underperforming bats they do have can get going and maintain.