Bellhorn04
-
Posts
54,672 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
75
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Bellhorn04
-
That's not really the case. Prior to 2018, the team always hovered around the tax threshold. 2018 was the first year they blew way past it. And the new (2017-2021) rules brought in the accelerating tax rates and re-set structure.
-
The drop of 10 spots only applies if you exceed the first threshold by more than 40 million. So we were hit with that penalty for 2018, but not for 2019. And as it stands we wouldn't be hit with it for 2020. And the loss of International Pool money only applies if you sign a free agent who rejected a QO.
-
As I said, Speier pointed out that there are other penalties in withheld revenue-sharing money. All money.
-
Those penalties are negligible. Your Budgie license is hereby revoked.
-
Huh? If the luxury tax payments are the smallest part of it, what's the big deal about re-setting?
-
I think a lot of it has to do with the lux tax structure and the fact that Year 3 is deadly. Alex Speier also pointed out that there are other penalties in withheld revenue-sharing money for teams who go over the threshold 3 years in a row.
-
I'm referring more to the entertainment here on the forum.
-
One thing that gets overlooked a bit about trading Mookie is that it will actually save the team $40 million or so, including the tax, assuming that if we kept Mookie we'd be over the limit by about $20-25 million.
-
I want the Clay man too. Though I admit a lot of it is for entertainment purposes.
-
One of your better humor efforts.
-
Al Hartz drives the truck and has for a long time. Just found that out this morning.
-
Yep. He'll be back in NE.
-
LOL. And I promise I will never again disparage the team doctors.
-
Hey Lawrence, remember when you said this?
-
You are too much, Lawrence.
-
That's the $400 million question.
-
I'll say this, if it comes to Mookie being a free agent and we're in on it, as a fan I'll certainly be hoping we have the highest bid.
-
But you probably won't like the $35 million AAV for those last 6 years so much, when those years inevitably arrive.
-
Peter Gammons @pgammo Three different NL folks today predicted Betts-to-L.A. is "inevitable." Consensus deal:Alex Verdugo, Inf Jeter Downs, pitcher, maybe A prospect. Think P is LH Caleb Ferguson, 95 MPH FB/CB guy, 113-39 K-BB in 93.1 IP, eventual starter.
-
Seagar ,May ,Pollock for Mookie ?
Bellhorn04 replied to Swiharts Ghost's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
That's a whole other debate. -
Seagar ,May ,Pollock for Mookie ?
Bellhorn04 replied to Swiharts Ghost's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
So what you're really saying is that the people who run the teams are stupid, and that an opt-out might save the team from its own stupidity through sheer luck. -
It's the old prizefighter syndrome. They don't quit till it's too late. Why? Because combat is their life.
-
Seagar ,May ,Pollock for Mookie ?
Bellhorn04 replied to Swiharts Ghost's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
And in the case that the player could get more money on the open market, you'd be better off having him because you'd be able to trade him. Thus it's a fallacy that the player opting out benefits you. -
Seagar ,May ,Pollock for Mookie ?
Bellhorn04 replied to Swiharts Ghost's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
Well, I agree with 700hitter (I think) - all things equal, opt outs are not a plus for the team. -
Seagar ,May ,Pollock for Mookie ?
Bellhorn04 replied to Swiharts Ghost's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
700hitter's point comes into effect if the guy has a strong year before the opt-out decision. Then you would be hoping for him to opt in, because in theory he'd be tradeable for at least as much as what was left on his contract.
