Bellhorn04
-
Posts
55,041 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
76
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
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Bellhorn04
-
That seems to be the size of it. It's gentlemen place your bets (please overlook the pun) time. My bet is they don't trade Betts. I fully accept I could be wrong, but if I had to lay money on it that's where it would go.
-
Sure, anything can happen. Sale and Eovaldi might not miss a start between them...
-
If they can re-set this year without trading Betts I'm fine with it. I'm just opposed to trading him.
-
I think that's overstating it.
-
If JD opts out at the end of 2020 it'll be 5 guys.
-
They can afford to keep Betts in spite of Price and Eovaldi. At the end of the 2020 season when Mookie's contract expires, the contracts of Price and Eovaldi will have 2 more years to run at $49 million per year. That's an obstacle, but not a big one.
-
There's really nothing much forcing them to deal Betts or to re-set this year.
-
You're assuming that if they re-set in 2020 they'll get right back to heavy spending in 2021?
-
But my whole argument is about re-setting in 2021. No Price, no JDM, no JBJ.
-
Ideally, yes. Maybe a bit less.
-
I meant trading him before this season starts.
-
Mookie's projected 2020 salary is 27.5 mill. If he signs the same deal as Trout his 2021 AAV would be 35.5 mill, so an increment of 8 mill.
-
Not necessarily, if they trade Price.
-
I'm not saying that a re-set in 2020 wouldn't be beneficial. Obviously it would. But I think the benefits are being exaggerated a bit. If we end up 20 million over the 208 for 2020, we pay 10 million tax. That's actually less tax than in 2018 or 2019. And JDM and JBJ would likely both be gone after 2020, so that's 33 million or so gone for 2021 right there.
-
The other benefit of re-setting which Speier explained in his analysis (the one about the $100 million savings) has to do with a revenue-sharing penalty that is separate from the luxury tax itself.
-
No.
-
But we do have to put a lot on those injury-riddled 38 games. He had a mysterious injury, his defense had deteriorated shockingly, and to top it off he seemed to have a malcontent attitude.
-
Here's what 5GoldGloves said. The scenario starts with Mookie agreeing to an extension. But what if the Sox make an offer that Betts agrees to? It would still be contingent upon the reset, which would likely mean moving a high-priced pitcher and JBJ. Then they'd have to replace at least a starter and an outfielder -- hopefully with young controllables that could help restock depth and sustain contention. At that point, it may be practical instead to deal the one Red Sox with the most trade value: Devers. I hope not, because the kid looks like he could develop into a lefty combo of Cabrera/Beltre...
-
Here it is: Beginning in the 2017-18 offseason, any team that is over the luxury tax threshold and signs a Major League free agent that has rejected a qualifying offer will lose $1 million from their international signing pool in the following signing period. A team that is not over the luxury tax would only forfeit $500,000 of its signing pool in the subsequent period. So once again, this has nothing to do with the number of times in a row you've exceeded the threshold.
-
15 full seasons, I think.
-
a) Trade Price this offseason, with the other team paying $18 mill a year or so. JDM opts out at the end of the year. c) JBJ is gone.
-
We still haven't seen the real proof that it's a mandate to get below 208. We've certainly seen that it's a mandate to curb spending.
-
True, although his teams did make it to 4 Series.
-
a) "It's a goal, not a mandate." They could re-set in 2021, or 2022...
-
No, the draft implications come in if you exceed the first threshold by 40 million, regardless of whether it's the first time or tenth time in a row.
