Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

jad

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,475

  • 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

  1. jad
    Great idea! Now, since I haven't been following the league closely this year, remind me which team has two players who hit 30+ hr, 200 hits, 50 doubles, over .300, under team control making almost nothing, who would jump at the chance of giving them up for one such player?
  2. jad
    Perhaps it's worth considering not 'who has the most trade value,' but rather 'who has the most value for the team.' As pointed out above, no one is going to Fenway park all fired up because the RS have great players in Portland, where I can see them just fine in my $10 front row seat.
  3. jad
    Ignore him. Yankee BOT.
  4. jad
    Exactly. That was my point about the difference between ordinary businesses (which generally are concerned primarily with hte bottom line), and sports franchises, which in many cases are 'hobbies' whose primary function is feeding the owner's ego.
  5. jad
    Or it could be a simple business decision. (Although sports franchises, for many owners, are less like a 'business' than a 'hobby'.)
  6. jad
    I don't know. But it seems to me if the thinking is "Sure. Porcello had a mediocre year. So he won't mind being punished with a one-year contract, worth half what he's making now" then you might as well plan to low-ball Mookie as well (who also will welcome the chance to 'rebuild his reputation'). I think it's far more likely RP and his agent think 'Damn! I'm a Cy Young winner, and I plan on being paid like one.' I.e., exactly what you and I would think if we were in the same (unimaginable!) position.
  7. jad
    No they're not. They are a way of ensuring that the players get money that otherwise would be pocketed by the owners. If the owners don't like guaranteed salaries, then they can offer players something equally valuable in the next CBA.
  8. jad
    Why would you exclude that? It's far more reasonable than most of the trades suggested here.
  9. jad
    Or, as many posters have suggested, throw in your best and cheapest players as well, since their trade value is highest. So I think if you added Devers and Erod to the mix (maybe trading them for JD and Vasquez and simply letting Mookie walk), the deal might work. Otherwise, DFA the whole pack of them.
  10. jad
    Yeah, Big Papi sucked too. Plus, the entire ALeague pitching staff did nothing at the plate all year. DFA them all.
  11. jad
    Trade Chacin straight up for Betts. Maybe throw in JBJ (on one side or the other) to make the deal work.
  12. jad
    Doesn't this just show the expected? When you're successful, you stick with what you have. When you're not, you try different approaches? (I don't think any manager of a successful team says 'Hey, I've got an idea: let's use 60+ pitchers this year and have our aces pitch as little as possible.')
  13. jad
    Yup. But if he had made that play in inning 1, he would have saved himself 4 runs and could have cruised to a W. (Of course, as Nadal said about the conditions that could make Kyrgios' a top 10 player: "Eef, eef, eef, eef ...")
  14. jad
    Unless you're competing against your lover (or would-be lover), your friend with Parkinson's, or an 11-year-old, you try to win, no? That's more or less the convention of sports. Especially, I would guess, when you are asking people to pay to witness it.
  15. jad
    Love Devers. But that was the worst AB of his (or nearly anyone) I've seen all season.
  16. jad
    Agreed. I knew we were talking at cross-purposes somehow. It's extremely difficult to earn one's way there. Because (alas!) the surest way to the 1% (or the 10%, or even the 50%) is to be born into it.
  17. jad
    They're not? (DTS was just handed a check for over 2 billion dollars). You think there are over 3 million Americans with more than that? (Yikes!) (Actually, the figure for 1% is $10million net worth. Even dumb-ass athletes have that much!)
  18. jad
    You must travel in a different circle from mine. But let's just talk sports franchise owners: the only names I can think of are: Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones, (once) Donald Sterling, Jeanie Buss, the guy who owns the Sacramento Kings, Derek Jeter (?), (the dude who used to own the Colts)--hardly geniuses ... Maybe the ones I can't think of are infinitely smarter than the few I can.
  19. jad
    I think we have plenty of evidence around us that "insanely intelligent" is not something that applies to 1%ers, or even that small sub-set of them who happen to own sports franchises.
  20. jad
    (OK. I admit defeat. I think I would have to spend the entire week reviewing older posts to understand the nuances of this argument. I'm not even certain of the topic. But my incisive opinion: Mookie is a very good baseball player; he deserves to make a lot of money; I don't know how much.)
  21. jad
    Agree. I really don't care what they make (I care more about what owners make, since they're the ones that extort money from the public in the form of tax breaks, etc.). But our attitudes toward money are curious: few of us (wage earners--I'll omit figures) think 'I have way way way more money than I need to live comfortably'. Instead, we think 'I need vacations, tuition for my kids, money for my business ventures, a new house, ...' i.e., our imagined 'needs' expand to align with our 'means', and we never have quite enough. I imagine the same psychology applies to those who make 100x more than we do.
  22. jad
    Well yes. But the issue is that players don't 'need' money (anymore than someone making 80K 'needs' every nickel of that). They view it as a statement of their value and worth. It takes a lot of introspection to disassociate those two things, and I doubt a 25-year-old multi-millionaire is in a position to do that. Additionally, that pay-cut (as the player and his agent well know) will not go to fans; it won't go to helping the hungry; and it won't go to dropping ticket prices. It will go into the owners' pockets or to other players. And that's an interesting question on the income of ticket-buyers, and probably a difficult one to answer, since many season tickets go to corporations, and many (a majority?) of those that go to individuals end up resold. In any case, we know they aren't over-priced, since there are butts in the seats. It won't matter if Mookie (and all other players for that matter) gets 40million/year or plays for nothing; the ticket prices will remain the same.
  23. jad
    That's an excellent response. Now, if you would please answer the simple question I asked: your boss notes that you can live comfortably on 20% less than you make now and thus gives you a salary cut. How do you react? (Your boss, of course, will keep that 20% to do ... whatever.)
  24. jad
    And when your boss tells you you can live comfortably on 20K less per year than you get now, and therefore you can expect that as a pay cut, exactly how do you react?
  25. jad
    The math is pretty simple, no? The average career for an MLB player is 5.6 years. Let's just say you have a 25 man roster (even though it's effectively higher than that). Looks to me that you need 4-5 players from the farm even to keep a minimum roster. So just to have an average farm, you need all your first five picks eventually to become part of your roster.
×
×
  • Create New...