moonslav59

Bumgarner may be over the hill, but he'd still be a nice get. I'm not sure about going over the max line for him.

Those were miserable decades, but we've had over 15 years of solid teams-- even the last place teams looked okay to start the year.

Russell also won 2 college championships along with the Gold Medal and NBA championships. His picture is in the dictionary next to the word "winner."

I get that, but my point is that JH has shown he seeks ways to avoid paying taxes as all billionaires do. At worst, we try to restructure his deal to lessen the tax hit and give Pedey his money spread out. If it doesn't work, fine. We tried. I doubt we get fines for trying to restructure.

Can you restructure it from 2 years to 30 at a slightly higher amount?

I would not say he "is" the best in MLB, but I will say he's the best Sox defensive CF'er I have seen (since 1970).

I think Lynn was a great defender while with the Sox. maybe I was a little wrong, and he was just good. I don't think dWAR was as good then as it is now. Also, dWAR and UZR/150 are not supposed to be used in small sample sizes, so I don't use them-- like with JBJ's 2019 numbers. I'm not "having it both ways."

Eyes can be deceiving, but not by that much, but I'll say it again, dWAR has Lynn as a +2.3 while with Boston- the time we all saw him play and remember him as being damn good on defense.

JH did force a rule change due to the Rusney Castillo fiasco. Billionaires often look for ways to circumvent the rules without breaking rules or by getting away with breaking them. The organization got caught cheating with International FAs. The organization has done "wink-wink" deals with players like AGon. It's not like there is no history of JH trying to save on paying taxes. Let's not pretend we have been squeaky clean. Besides, my point is, we may try to do it. It may work- it may not, but first Pedey has to be on board with the idea. My point is not that I am sure it will work. It may be a long shot. it may be impossible. I don't think it is a "scumbag" move as these taxes only go towards to fattening cheap owner's pockets anyways.

An arbitrator or court would probably have the final say- not the owners.

Yes, like RF/9, which is severely flawed, since some teams had high K-rates and/or low fly ball rates. Teams with spacious OFs got more chances.

How about this, then. Say Pedey agrees to restructure his contract from 2 years remaining at $25M combined to $30M over the next 30 years as a player/coach? The union might complain, but he's not taking a pay cut.

You know we had a wink-wink deal with AGon, and announced it after the season started, so we could save taxes. I'm not even talking "wink-wink" though. Would it really be outrageous for the Sox to sign Pedey to a $12M lifetime services deal? Or, to sign him to a 24 year $14M deal as a consultant? I could see them doing that without him retiring early. How can anyone prove that is circumventing the system, if Pedey chooses to retire a year early. Nobody acted crazy when Dempster gave up his last year for nothing. Look, I admit it probably won't work, but in all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised, if the Sox sign Pedey as a coach after he retires, anyways.

I doubt like the level we have now.

Well, take into account that we barely saw Lynn play after he left Boston. He was injured a lot, and as we know, Lynn played injured, unlike guys like Ellsbury and JD Drew. While I think +2.3 while with Boston looks low, the system back then was probably not as good as the one we have now, and all systems have flaws. Lynn had Dewey in RF, who maybe took some plays away from him or allowed him to shade more towards LF than RF. The short wall in LF may have taken a few "playable" balls away. Who knows. I'm not sure anyone is strongly defending the pre-2003 system, and most of us current WAR users admit it is flawed but not beyond usefulness.

What was that system based on? Is it comparable to UZR/150, DRS and the current dWAR metrics?

It sure feels good, doesn't it? For decades we were their bitch. We're getting close to 2 decades of reversed roles. Gotta love it!

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people assume we are only as good as our last 10 games, 3 games or even one game, unless we are doing well, then there still are nay-sayers. We started off 17-2 last year, and then the Yanks took over first place by May 9th. You'd have thought the sky was falling. This year, we went 8.5 games behind the division. Now, we are just 3 back. We currently hold the second wild card slot, if the season ended today. Cleveland seems to be the stiffest competition for that last slot, and they lost Kluber. It's a 162 game season. Every team looks good for a while- some much longer than others- and bad for a while- some much longer than others. I don't know why some people assume a team will only continue to repeat what they look like in their most recent sample size, despite countless examples that prove them wrong. Sure, every now and then, a blind squirrel finds a nut, but come on! This team is essentially the same as last year's team. No way losing Kimbrel turns us into a non-contender. Yes, teams return almost in full and have major swings in wins and losses, but it is rare, unless there are injuries or major aging issues. Our team is young and almost all in prime or near prime. Our oldest players have marginal roles or have capable back-ups. We should not see a steep decline. We are making the playoffs- barring major injuries. When October comes, I like our team's experience, coaching, leadership, offense, defense, pitching, base-running and overall chances. Our oldest players: 36 Steve Pearce (short platoon 1Bman with Chavis as back-up) 35 Pedroia (who counted on him anyways? Holt/Nunez/Chavis/Lin in reserve) 33 Moreland (barely past prime. Pearce & Chavis is reserve) 33 Price (currently on a cautionary IL, but has looked good for over a year) 32 Nunez (currently hobbled, but he's just a sub.) Everyone else is 31 or younger! We aren't declining. We could get even better.

Have players ever retired and then signed with their team as a coach? The only issue would be that Pedey gave up money by retiring, and if it was an obvious overpay for a coaching salary afterwards. If it is not so obvious, then maybe...

I'm not so sure. Pedey may retire- like Dempster did, and if we sign him as a coach/consultant/whatever for more than what he is probably worth in that role, it may be hard to prove anything in a grievance or court of law. (BTW, I said "maybe" a "slight chance" when talking about this idea long ago. I doubt it can work, but I also doubt it's an impossible dream.)

His "statistical line" in Boston, when we saw him, was a solid +2.3.

I'm not dodging the point. I was the one who made the point. I'm just saying that if you are going to use the pre- total zone system dWAR as a measuring stick, then Lynn was a plus in Boston- just as we remembered. True, I remember him being plus-plus, but at least I'm not thinking I saw plus-plus and the numbers showed minus. (That was my second point.) I don't have an answer on how they can determine dWAR before the system was in place. oWAR, I can understand, since it is based solely on hitting stats... not observations of where balls were hit and how playable they were.

At times, the 'Stros looked unbeatable, last year- as did the Yanks. We're looking good, now, and I'm not worried.

Lynn was a plus with the Sox (+2.3). Most of his negatives came post-Sox (-5.4). It was hard to watch much of him after he left.

I'm done with any hope for Travis.