jad
-
Posts
4,477 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
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 jad
-
Can he still operate a camera?
-
Calling All Budgies - the Red Sox 2020 payroll thread
jad replied to Bellhorn04's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
That one I know (well, pretty sure). If a guy is on the 40-man roster at any point in the year, the team owes tax on the full annual average. (That's why they couldn't bring Rusney up for a brief look.) (Hmm. I should revise that. I don't in fact know that. I'm just thinking of the nightmarish calculations by teams and the league that would result if it weren't this simple, and assuming those who drafted the CBA thought of those as well.) -
Calling All Budgies - the Red Sox 2020 payroll thread
jad replied to Bellhorn04's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
On Rusney: This has probably been answered before. My understanding is that if he gets put on hte 40-man roster (here or elsewhere, if they release him), RS will be stuck for luxury tax purposes with his average annual salary, correct? But only for the year (or years) in which he is on the roster? (I imagine this means that we won't see Castillo unless the RS are $12 million under hte luxury tax cap after the trading deadline. -
I know. the idea that teams have tried to bend the rules to win is shocking. Shocking! It's something I've never heard of or experienced in any level of sports, professional, amateur, or weekend.
-
In Plato's LAWS, he recommends a specific punishment for a crime. If you commit the same crime while drunk, the punishment is DOUBLED.
-
WTF? Guys! We're talking about PLAYERS being high! Not posters getting wasted and blathering on about whatever extraneous topics they want. C'mon now. FOCUS!!!!
-
But they won't and that from a business pt. of view. The ticket prices, as you know, are determined by bean-counters to maximize the gate receipts, whether that means sell-outs or half-empty stadiums.
-
The problem is, who gets that money if it doesn't go to the players? It won't go to you or me. And it won't go to people who really need it. Unless society and the politicians whose careers are funded by the uber-rich step up and decide that there is no reason for ANYONE to make or possess the kind of money top entertainers do and CEOs and board members grant themselves, this is what we're stuck with. (Just keep your pitchforks handy, that guillotine blade well sharpened, and hope for the best.)
-
Of course, then there's Bernie Carbo, but I suppose with him, there's no real "control" since there's no evidence he ever went to the plate in his perfect mind: Here's what he said about the 1975 series: "I probably smoked two joints, drank about three or four beers, got to the ballpark, took some [amphetamines], took a pain pill, drank a cup of coffee, chewed some tobacco, had a cigarette, and got up to the plate and hit,'' Carbo said.
-
Do you think that's true? I think many owners are in it for their egos--they don't need to make decisions based purely on business factors (although they might hide behind that idea). (Dan Snyder? Jerry Jones? Even Steve Ballmer--the Clippers are a billionaire's hobby, not a business). That's why prof. sports sometimes is baffling from an economic point of view. Also, not sure about players' 'love of the sport'--they're there for fame and money. And they are good enough at what they do to get a lot of it. (That's probably what you meant by 'etc.'!)
-
So although mj is no longer banned, according to SI, players are subject to penalties for showing up high to games or practices. I'm aware of Doc Ellis' claim (confirmed by a guy I know who 'claims' to know him--which is about as valid evidence as saying a friend of my cousin Vinnie states for a fact that ...) that he pitched a game tripping on acid. (Speaking only for myself, I very much doubt I could even grasp the concept "Game-hood" in those circumstances). But since the emergence of dope pretty much coincided with the end of my organized sports career, I have a question: Can you play (or have you played) baseball stoned? And how does it affect your performance? And hell, while we're here, how about other sports: Tennis? Golf? Weed only, please. I think from pro-sports we already know what can be done if you're whacked out on speed or opioids.
-
Why? Because it's fine for an owner to f*ck over an employee 'for business reasons' but it's not ok for employees to get the best deal they can for themselves?? the only way I can 'understand' that is on the assumption that all business-owners are amoral capitalist pigs, which, despite the growing evidence, I'm not (yet) willing to do. If that were the case, rather than accept it, we should all be sharpening up our pitchforks. Rich and privileged owners/entertainers/trust-funders should be held to higher moral standards than the rest of us, not lower standards.
-
I've heard that phrase a lot, and almost every time I've heard it (although not here by you, because you show no signs of that!), there's been a racist edge to it. Maybe I've been a RS fan for too long, going back to pre-Pumpsie Green years, but when I hear writers and fans make this claim, I remember it's being used of, say, Reggie Smith, other black players. I was always surprised that AGon would be so disliked: I loved his play, and when you look at his numbers, he hit exactly in Boston as he did elsewhere. Like the equally reviled JDDrew, (a different player obviously), the RS got EXACTLY the player they would have expected (although Drew was never accused of "not fitting in.")
-
But the tix that matter aren't those sold to 'true fans' or those who care about the farm or a rebuild. Those fans will (like some) either renew their season tix regardless, or (like me) will continue to get their one ticket every ten years or so regardless of what the team does. The tix that matter are those sold to the much-disparaged "Pink Hats", who will go if the team is doing well, but won't if the team sucks. And none of these people say "Wow! The Sox are losing, but think of how well Portland is doing!"
-
Likely so. But then we'll be able to hurl juvenile obscenities at each other for failing to understand something none of us knows a thing about.
-
OK. As far as I can tell, yes, those contracts are all legit. But for luxury tax purposes, the total amount is averaged over the years of the contract itself. (OK. Player [like Scherzer] gets 200 million for five years, say, with 50 million of that deferred for 7 or 8 years. So the club would shell out only 30 million for the five years he plays, then the extra 50 in the future, when he's not under contract. But for luxury tax purposes, the math is simpler: it's the average. In this [hypothetical] case, it's 40 million/year for 5 years.)
-
Hmm. You and Slasher9 seem to disagree on this. Not trying to start a fight. Just want to know the answer.
-
Thanks.
-
That's my question. Once a deal is made, it can't be changed. What I don't know is how a front- or back-loaded deal counts for tax purposes. Is it averaged? Or, as long as it's a deal made in good faith (e.g., a lot of money up front, then less for final years, or the reverse--an escalating one, with a lot of deferred money), whether that is simply counted year by year as is, or averaged. I believe ANY non-standard deal that's made specifically to get around the tax would not be allowed (that is, these would be determined on a case by case basis). Anyone know?
-
That's interesting. Are you sure of that? Because if that were possible, it would be relatively easy (well, "possible") for a team to get under the cap by deferring ('restructuring') money owed in a particular year to particular players. I don't think once a contract is signed, it can be changed. (Here is some language concerning this I found--not sure how accurate it is): Deferred money is part of the total contract value, and is included in the luxury tax calculation. Only the years during which the player is signed to play count for the denominator, though. Any contract that is obviously an attempt to circumvent the luxury tax would be shot down by the office of the commissioner. You're not allowed to do that.
-
I don't believe the CBA allows such renegotiating, does it? (Castillo cannot say--look, I'll play for 5 million/year if you put me on the roster; nor can you 'restructure' [one of the more amusing euphemisms for owners f*cking players over] the deal to be paid over, say, 40 years. ) Players can do this in the NFL (where contracts mean s***), but not in MLB. Was that not the sticking point of the aborted trade for Arod years ago? (and why Manny ended up with the RS?)
-
They see money as a sign of their own worth or virtue. It's pretty much the same in every other profession, no? Even a-hole billionaires often want to have $1 more than other a-hole billionaires.
-
The worse! My brother would always parody his line when anyone DARED to foul a Celtics player: "A disGRACE to basketball. A disGRACE to basketball." (This from a guy whose team sported Jungle Jim Luskatov!)
-
Some of you may be old enough to remember when the NFL 'listened to the fans' and televised a game with no announcers. (I think it was a Jets game, but I have no idea where that thought comes from.) It was a disaster.
-
If he can catch at the same time, that will at least solve the sign stealing problem.
