jad
-
Posts
4,661 -
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
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by jad
-
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.
-
Depends on your definition of honest. But to be clear, I don't believe anyone who amasses that kind of money came by it ethically. To claim they did is (to me) like claiming poor people deserve to be poor, or are so because they are not as smart, hard-working, or virtuous as those who are rich. (I have no real interest in investigating whether one greedy, self-interested billionaire is more or less awful than the next.) I watch sports to escape all these considerations, but sometimes, it's unavoidable.
-
I agree with you, of course. The problem is that players (who at that level do not 'need' anything) do not see money as a commodity, but rather as a sign of their own worth. Thus, they want $1 more than player x. Where I worked, I know of senior colleagues who would make that specific demand to their bosses. But it's odd that fans complain about the salaries of entertainers--they do not complain about the money the owners make, nor how they 'acquired' (i.e., 'stole') the obscene amounts of money required to own a sports franchise as essentially a plaything.
-
I know this is the accepted narrative, but can anyone post a list of those prospects DD dealt away who have proven to be valuable MLB players? I don't ask this to start an argument; I just really don't know who those players are.
-
Let me know if you're also fine with death threats to Reddick's kids, since it was that topic (death threats) that brought you back to the subject of beating up 17 year old runaways.
-
Well, you guys are obviously reading different reports from the ones I see readily on-line, although you haven't cited them (you can look back to see the reports I'm basing my views on). I actually hope you're right, and I hope the reports I've seen are wrong. Please cite the sources you're basing your views on, because I have difficulty understanding people who make excuses for participating in sexual assault, whether the guy is a mid-level player or a superstar like Kobe Bryant. Otherwise, it's pointless to argue. You are not going to persuade me that this kind of thing is just "boys being boys."
-
"Zero" is a big word. As I understand it, the only controversy is whether he was passed out while this was going on or he was holding the camera. Both of those things kinda bother me, but I guess I understand why for others, it's no big deal. (Sorry, gotta run. I'm late for a Kobe celebration.)
-
Little guys rule! https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2020/02/21/blue-jackets-nathan-gerbe-travis-sanheim-fight-video
-
Yeah, I know. Not a rapist. Rather, just a camera guy. You know, like all of us here. As long as we're drunk enough, having a 17-year-old get assaulted in our hotel room is no big thing. So I guess death threats to athletes aren't either?
-
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28749183/athletics-mike-fiers-acknowledges-receiving-death-threats Just in case anyone wondered why there are people out there who think sports fans are a-holes.
-
My bad. Nope. We agree. I sent the reply to the wrong post. And finally, if it's 420, how can it be bad?
-
You're one step ahead of me! They will have to pry mine out of these cold dead hands.
-
Why isn't 420 million reasonable? It's the entertainment business and others are willing to pay it. You can't get into that business then complain it's not being run like WalMart. [if by "reasonable" you mean something abstract like 'good for a civilized society,' then I'm with you. But far more 'unreasonable' is the bare fact that individuals in a society have billions of dollars to spend on what to them are essentially playthings. None of these people should be able to steal and hoard money and resources like that, and wouldn't, unless they were supported by envious sycophants and the machinery of a police state. ... OK. That's a different discussion: most of us are here on a sports board precisely because we want to escape for a moment things that truly matter in our lives!]
-
Are you suggesting that with all that sudden cap space, Castillo comes up? (That's a bad look! RS traded their best player in order to get the cap space to bring up a grossly overpaid minor leaguer? But for Castillo's sake, I suppose I hope it happens.)
-
Wow. You mean I can just click on ... Who Knew????!!! I have trouble enough dealing with the rotary dial on this machine.
-
Moon-- Please start "Realistic View, Part II." Loading the nearly 400 pages of this one takes valuable time away from my more serious pursuits--e.g., complaining about Clippers' rotations.
-
The LA City council vote was a joke and an embarrassment. I assure you NO ONE out here is talking about that. There are still a few sanctimonious a-holes (like LeBron James) who apparently, during their entire sports careers, have NEVER experienced cheating and have no idea how to respond except by throwing a moralistic fit or falling to a floor like three-year-olds. In general, those who get most outraged at the whiff of cheating, scandal, or crime are those who are guilty of it.
