moonslav59

I'm not saying teams don't make money off ST'ing, but my point was it's probably not enough to make owners more likely to agree to a new CBA to avoid losing those profits. I also think the amount they make might not be as much as we think due to the massive expenses ST'ing must be, and that some teams might make much less than others.

Not just the fans, but the lower paid players, too. That was kind of the point I was aiming for with this theoretical talk. The lower paid players, who are the vast majority, should not automatically shoot down caps and limits, if the give back by owners raises their salaries by a significant amount. Only a select few get those mega deals, yet everything seems to be geared towards allowing theose few to keep making more and more-at the expense of the fans and minimum to lower paid players.

Dude, I'm not championing this idea. Settle down!

I know, that's why I said in theory. Think of it this way, forget about the "structure" element of my point: which top pay outcome, even under a completely free bidding structure, would most players hope happened?

The majority of the biggest/longest deals in MLB history have been between horrific and meh for the team signing them. Yet, they persist.

That's the big get for owners- they don't! Top players actually go to the city they want to play for not based on money, unless just one team offers them the most possible. Again, I am not championing this idea, just exploring it.

Theoretically speaking only, which top pay structure do you think the majority of MLB players would endorse? The top 30 players make $40M each. The top 40 players make $30M each. The top 60 players make $20M each. The top 80 players make $15M each. The top 120 players make $10M each.

I agree, but this could be a demand they make that is more palatable to the players than a team cap or severe lux taxes on team budgets. Not many players would be affected by this. Also, in theory, the players would get something back in return for giving the owners this change- maybe a 27th roster slot or a big raise in min wage.

This guy was rated above the "puffered" Frank German,

So, instead of team caps and limits, should there be a limit on what one player can make? Something like no more than 6 or 7 times the league average salary from the previous season. I'm not saying I like the idea, but it's a different one.

Maybe that's one reason why they haven't done that!

#50 Brandon Howlett: https://soxprospects.com/players/howlett-brandon.htm?fbclid=IwAR3lkcUWKQWLQ-JJp3KolIxPSxQsejGCG8I9IPMLWNV56SNez6B6JKd5zIY Not much puffery, here.

It's been just over 2 years since the Mookie deal. The wound still seems so fresh for so many. (And, this from someone who suggested maybe topping out at $400M/12 to keep him.)

I get that, but if our #52 prospect has a good chance to make an impact, then our farm is better and deeper than anyone seems to think. (BTW, a lot of guys who can throw 99 never sniff MLB, but I, too, share your optimism on FG.)

No, but I can see how what they wrote might be on the rosy side of the scale. I happen to think German does have some promise, and they did use the word "might," so maybe it is fairly accurate. In all honesty, what are the chances German becomes a serviceable RP'er in the bigs?

That's the major point behind the logic of the trade. Yes, keeping Betts might have improved our odds of keeping him beyond that one awful season, but it seems clear that was not going to happen, and had it did happen, the cost of his contract would be a key factor in determining which path was the better one to take. I wish we still had Betts, but it really comes down to this: 1 year of Betts, call Price a push vs 4 years of Verdugo and some promise from 2 prospects. or 11 years of Betts and his salary vs 4 years of Verdugo, 2 prospects with some promise and a boatload of money to spend over 10 years on several players.

Some might argue that's pretty rosy for a #52 in a 20th ranked team's system.

The lose-lose strategy seems to be very popular, these days.

There is a lot of cost involved in spring training, too, and the stadiums are small. I'm not sure the profits are something owners dread losing. (Some may lose money.)

LOL! All-in-all, I think soxprospects.com does a pretty good job tampering down their optimism. (I'm assuming you were being sarcastic.)

...and just how much money do the owners need? My view is the owner's greed is less excusable, since they started out filthy rich.

He's likely not done spending, either. People said the same, last winter, but Bloom spent about $40M on 2021 salary. The thing that made it hardly noticeable was that he had to spread it out over 10 roster slots. This year, it might only need to be 5-7 slots, so maybe the talent level can be more promising. (Not like 2021 worked out all that badly.)

I thought we gained by losing Price and half his salary, but it was close to a push, at the time, so yes: I agree. Our defense was God awful, last year, so maybe that was part of why the JBJ deal was done. It effectively improved 2 positions, defensively if you believe JBJ > Kike in the OF, like many here seem to believe.

I'm excited our farm looks more promising than 1-4 years ago. It may not pan out, or we may trade some prospects before they get a chance to shine or flop, but it's all about speculation and improving your chances by improving talent on your 26 man roster and farm.

I don't recall anyone saying it was a great trade. I recall hearing things like this... "Bloom must really like these prospects..." (not the same as saying these prospects are going to be good.) "Bloom must think JBJ will bounce back..."/ "Bloom must think Renfroe will regress..." "The cost of Renfroe's arbs lessens the fininacial cost of JBJ's contract..." (not fully, of course) On the Betts trade, one could argue we won the trade, even if the prospects give us zilch. 4 years of Verdugo vs 1 year of Betts (a year we finished nearly worst in the league.) The JBJ trade may be rated based on how well JBJ & Renfroe do, without any input from Hamilton or Binelas. The Beni trade was basically all about prospetcs- none of whom have given any pluses in the bigs... yet. The Sox don't have many examples like VTek & Lowe, because we are usually the ones trading prospects for experience, but there are countless examples where the prospects contribute enough to tip the scales. Of course, there are countless examples where they don't, as well.