moonslav59
-
Posts
103,688 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
128
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 moonslav59
-
#34 Victor Santos: https://soxprospects.com/players/santos-victor.htm Potential emergency depth starter. Ceiling of a sixth starter/long-man. High floor/low ceiling. Potential for two at-least average secondary pitches. Lack of fastball potential limits ceiling. Has solid feel for pitching and an advanced command profile. Will throw strikes, but lacks put-away stuff. Turns 22 in July.
-
I'm not saying it "has to be" anything. Those are your words, not mine. LOL!
-
I'm not making the rules, and I'm not sure of my views on asterisks for other changes. I happen to think this a major rule change that will and would have affected a great many players' numbers, and some not so much. I think Papi's numbers would have been even better, perhaps much better had they changed the rule in 2000. The fact that Aaron played longer and got more PAs does matter, but it's not related to anything the league did. You can make adjustments for shorter seasons, on your own. One can always look at HRs per PA, but how can you adjust, even roughly, for things like the shift being taken away?
-
Yup, and this is a buggy for some players and hardly anything for others, as are other past changes.
-
Yes, I did think about it and maybe asterisks should be placed next to other stats for other reasons, but this is a rule change. The shorter season is also a big one.
-
Please, go on and on.
-
You really think the shift made no difference in his stats?
-
Are they going to adjust Papi’s stats upward or just put an asterisk next to every stat pre-2023?
-
It would be even worse than AAA ball, as many of the best AAA players are on the 40 man rosters.
-
One problem with ownership is that some owners treat this as a hobby, and seek the fame of winning rings, and so maybe don't care as much about maximizing profits as other owners who are treating this like a 100% business venture. Teams like Pittsburgh doesn't seem to think winning will be worth the cost of adding higher player salaries. They are fine making a steady buck, even if some is through revenue sharing. I will say that winning should help bring in much more revenue, but I remember the several World Series games not selling out- back in the day (I'm thinking Pitt and Bal.)
-
Not as much as I expected but still a nice rate with not counting profits and side business profits.
-
Forbes Team value vs purchase price and date of purchase: $$$ 5.3B NYY 8.7M '73 3.6B LAD 2B '12 3.5B BOS 660M '02 3.4B Cubs 845M '09 3.2B SFG 100M '92 2.5B NYM 2.5B '20 2.2B STL 150M '95 2.1B PHI 30M '81 2.0B LAA 184M '03 1.9B WSH 450M '00 1.9B ATL 450M '07 1.9B HOU 615M '11 1.8B TEX 593M '10 1.7B CWS 20M '81 1.7B TOR 140M '00 1.6B SEA 106M '12 1.5B SDP 800M '12 1.4B BAL 173M '93 1.3B MIN 44M '84 1.3B AZ 130M '95 1.3B COL 95M '92 1.3B PIT 92M '96 1.3B DET 82M '92 1.2B MIL 223M '05 1.2B CLE 323M '99 1.1B OAK 180M '05 1.1B CIN 270M '06 1.1B KCR 1B '20 1.1B TBR 130M '05 990M MIA 1.3B '18
-
Thanks. I knew it was surprising, but I didn't realize it was by that much. So, assuming most owners make out like she did, they make 12% above and beyond what they make year-to-year in profits. Now, some teams claim they lose money year-to-year, but one has to wonder why the value of a team rises by 12%, when losing money year after year. Then, there is the side money owners can and often make on the side businesses like cable TV, concession and merchandising. Some make revenue sharing money, too.
-
You said you didn't think about it. A debate is about exchanging opinions, so I'm not sure where you were going with that piece. BTW, where did I say these discussions are so life important? I'm bored, so I discuss. It's not even close to "life important." It's weird how you imply I am putting words in your mouth, the you actually put words in my mouth. (Maybe you meant to put a question mark after your third to last sentence.)
-
I just think that when we are having a discussion about how much people make in a business that is in the middle of negotiating how much each should make, it might help to think about it, or just not make comments. This is not meant as a criticism of you or your position, but to me, it's about looking at the context of the entertainment business and where the trends have been going, and factoring in inflation, what would be fair for both sides. I realize every person probably has a different idea of what is fair, and maybe I'm wrong about my assumptions on what owners are making on what I feel like is no-risk business. I'm open to the idea that I might be wrong. I'm also open to the idea that owners might be making far more than what I think they make..
-
I guess I'd be a bad accountant. So, if I invested $11M in something, and made 12% a year, in 16 years, I'd have $67M to show for it? Or, and I confusing the term "return" with something else?
-
It seems to me, you want the owners to make obscene amounts of money, because $500K is more than most people dream of making. Am I wrong?
-
Well, it looks like the owners are setting the timer on the big bomb.
-
I thought my math was bad!
-
Maybe Marge Schott under extenuating circumstances?
-
Can anyone name the owner and date of the last time an owner sold his team for a loss?
-
There is NO risk of a MLB owner losing money, unless they blow up their own business.
-
I'm not sure anyone is doubting he's a big fat liar.
-
You keep acting like I don't understand your point. I do. I just disagree. Look, I get how many owners take the vast chunk of revenue, and some lose on their quest to make their business successful. I just think they take and demand too much. You don't. No MLB owner loses money when they sell their team- at least as long as I have been around. Even if the lose a few million here and there, which I doubt, there is no risk at losing money, overall, IMO, and that's one thing that what sets this business apart from many others.
-
Exactly, and many entertainers don't "run their own show."
