moonslav59
-
Posts
108,930 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
162
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospect Rankings
Boston Red Sox Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Boston Red Sox Fan Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Boston Red Sox News, Rumors & Analysis
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by moonslav59
-
Not to me. It's not even comical to suggest a min salary of $1M for a 162 game season + ST'ing.
-
That's one way of looking at it.. How long would MLB as a business lasted had they continued with scab players year after year?
-
Does soxprospects.com even have an archive of the previous #21-60 rankings?
-
It’s 65% over 3 years. I actually got that raise when part of a union. (I voted no.)
-
Why shouldn’t players try to make as much money as possible? It’s what a hell of a lot of people try to do. With so many careers just an injury or DFA away, grab what you can, while it lasts. True, some players are spoiled, as are many owners, but spoiled rotten people are everywhere.
-
I've been messing up math quite a bit lately. You guys seem to enjoy it. Still, a $1.05M raise over 3 years combined is still about a 65% raise of $1.65M/3 years. It's significant. I'm not sure why the players don't as for more than what they have on the min salary.
-
#49 Jeisson Rosario: https://soxprospects.com/players/rosario-jeisson.htm?fbclid=IwAR2meP0sVoUmOZwhpjOUwqSLVcYzmnhqqKNDcGZ70qTinabgvoHu_0CcS-E I had higher hopes for him at the time of the trade.
-
They should be asking for more than $775K flat.
-
I agree. I'm just saying expanded playoffs are not really a "gimmick." It's always about the money. To me, baseball plays 162 games for a reason, and letting half the teams make the playoffs cheapens that long struggle of 162 games.
-
...and there are a hundred plus Arauzes.
-
I hope they don't either, but it is a money-maker. It would go to 32 not 36.
-
A lot of players never make it to arb or when they do, make not much more than $1M a year. My idea also included lessening the arb years by 1, which further helps the lower paid players. BTW, someone make $550K x 3 years is $1.65M. My plan, they make $$2.7M. That's a $2M gain and over a 100% raise.
-
I'm not sure "gimmick" is the right word, but it's always about money. Every other league lets in nearly half to more than half the teams make the playoffs. To me, it's more about shortening the 162 game season to lengthen the playoffs or not. Cutting 5 games off the schedule is actually cutting 75 games in totality and 150 cable TV games market money-makers. Can they start a 162 game season 2-3 days earlier and extend it by 2-3 games to keep 162 AND expand the playoffs? (Maybe not have so many off days during the playoffs?) Do they add doubleheaders? I doubt they shorten the season.
-
The players will sign quickly. Some, who take longer to sign, might need more time to get ready, but I doubt it will be a major factor in effing up the season.
-
It's a huge difference, because of the amount of players it affects, and I was thinking more like min wage gets bumped up to $800K in 2022, $900 K in 2023 and $1M in 2024. That would be an enormous gain for many players- more noticeable, too.
-
Shortening the number of games played seems like the most realistic way to allow for expanded playoffs. I don't think you can lessen the days off during the season or playoffs. If a significant increase in doubleheaders were to be a greed upon, increasing the roster to 27 players might balance it, and maybe even 28 on the actual double header days. I hate the 7 inning idea, but it is an option.
-
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,
