moonslav59

Yes, right. If the majority of the players banded together and demanded higher minimum wages and a better arb set-up rather than a much higher luxury tax limit, the owners would probably be okay with the deal.

To me, the biggest thing the players should push for is to increase the minimum wage and maybe increase the roster to 26 or 27 players. Only a select few benefit from the current system- the owners and the big stars. More players make less than $2-3M than mega deals. They should demand more for the guys who might only last a year or two in the bigs. (I doubt they do this.)

We all do. Probably the best way to keep winning is to keep your farm from being near the worst even for one year, but certainly not 2-3 years in a row. We certainly won these rings by spending, but without some great homegrown talent mixed in, there would be zero rings. Every team we had from 2004, 2007. 2013 and 2018 all had several excellent players getting paid way below market value. It's hard to win by only spending. Right now, we have Devers, Beni and Brasier who are pre-arb and looking very good, but we will need more like them starting real soon, and I hate to sound like a pessimist, because I love this team, but I don't see the next Devers or Beni in sight.

No disagreement here. Probably most MLB team owners could easily spend $230+M on salaries, if they wanted to do it. Although doing so wouldn't guarantee rings, especially if they all did it at once. It might not even guarantee a major increase in attendance or TV viewership, if some of these teams did win. I remember seeing empty seats in some World Series games a while back. I do think Henry might decide to not reset the luxury tax, and if that is true, a lot of my posts have been based on faulty assumptions, but I still think he'd prefer not to pay these top tax rates every year or acquire the same reputation King George acquired when spending the Yanks to win after win. I think there is a certain amount of pride among owners to show you can manage a team to wins without outspending the next team by $35-40M. I'm thinking this year was a one time deal, as other teams that just reset the tax will come close to us in 2019, so it won't look so bad anymore, but I'm still going to continue to go on the assumption, right or wrong, that we will reset after 2020 or 2019 or almost certainly after 2021.

No, that penalty is not bad. I'm not a betting man, but I think we reset after 2020, but it wouldn't surprise me, if we do it after 2019, so we can spend big in 2020 and keep Mookie around. In either case, resetting in after 2019 or 2020 would mean trying to limit any big deals signed this year to less than 2 or 3 years, unless we view the player as a must for the year we reset.

They should. The M's are rebuilding. The Mets are creating a window to win now.

I wouldn't mind if Henry agrees to never reset the tax and spends and spends, but part of me will think I am being hypocritical after spending all those years lambasting Yankee fans for King George buying rings. I'd prefer we don't get that image, but winning is certainly better than enduring some of the same taunts from Yankee fans I used to hurl at them.

No. It sounded like you were saying these specific team are only competitive in short periods of time and can't remain consistently competitive. I think the Rays and A's have been more competitive than many teams that always spend more than them, so in a way, I guess I am saying they do better than some bigger spenders, but of course spending big makes most team much better and more able to go beyond just being "competitive". Winning it all almost always takes money. It seems strange that the rays & A's have not won a ring since the early 70's and a team like KC won once. I guess finishing worst so many years can help you build your farm. The Rays got some top picks before they started their fairly decent run at being pretty competitive for over a decade. I totally agree that spending is tied to success, but many teams spend big and never win and a few teams have shown they can spend little and do better than some who spend a lot more. It's not a cut and dried correlation.

Exactly. Watching him continue his greatness for 10 years with another team would be very sad and depressing.

I could be wrong, but I think his body type is the kind that ages well. Yes, he may get hurt crashing into walls, but I think he will be very good into his late 30's. To me, h is main skill is his reflexes and his "twitch responses" are off the charts good. I'm not sure there is a comparable comp in MLB history, but personally, I think that will help him as he ages. Besides, 37 is the new 35.

Where did I ever say or imply I wanted this for the Red Sox? Where did I ever say these teams should be the models of success? I just pointed out how some low spending teams have been, more or less, consistently competitive. They are not flash in the pan one or two year wonders like KC. I'm not sure where you think I'm coming from. You made it sound like these teams can compete once in a great while, but they have done better than that, despite not winning any rings. Of course, I would not want us to follow their model, although I wish we had some of their talent evaporators in our system.

It's not really a close comp. 1) The 10th year of Cano's deal he will be 40. Betts would be 37. 2) Betts has hit .897, .803 and 1.078 in his last 3 years with 2 more to go before he reaches free agency at age 28. Cano hit .914, ,882 and .899 the 3 years before he became a FA at age 30. 3) My opinion here, but Betts has the tools that age well.

I'd sign him to 10 years right now, but I admit giving him 10 after he becomes a free agent in 2 years is much more risky.

To some extent, yes, but the Rays and A's have been competitive quite a few seasons. The Rays made the playoffs in 4 of 6 seasons not too long ago, and they won 90 games this year. They've won 80 or more games in 9 of the last 11 seasons. That's pretty damn good for one of the lowest spenders in MLB. The A's have made the playoff in 9 of the last 19 seasons, They've also avoided being horrible and getting top draft picks. They've long won less than 74 games twice in the last 21 seasons. Minnesota has made the playoffs in 7 of the last 17 seasons and won over 83 games in 10 of 17 seasons.

Well, ND almost beat Georgia last year, and we're better this year. Georgia came close to beating Alabama, so there is a sliver of hope.

I get the 2019 argument, but signing Eovaldi will likely cause us to lose Porcello or Sale. I don't see it as a "hedge". It's a replacement.

I've never been that high on Robertson, and his age scares me now. I think Britton will be too costly. Maybe he'd agree to an inflated one year deal, so he can prove he is still dominant and durable. We could offer a second year option with a hefty buyout. I'd rather go cheaper with Ottavino or Familia and then use the left over money to go towards adding another quality set-up man.

Yes, I should have said that was his Sox WHIP. It might not be Eovaldi vs Porcello, but my guess is that by having a $15M contract on the books next year will be a big factor in deciding to let Porcello or Sale walk without replacing them in kind. I may be wrong, but I'm a firm believer than Henry will demand a re-set of the tax after 2020. (Some feel it might be after 2019.) If that is true, the planning begins now or actually began already, when we haven't sign anybody for long term deals after the Price deal. Moreland, Peacre, Nunez and JD's opt out are all under 3 years.

He's 35 and not likely to continue coming near his previous numbers over the next 5 years. In his defense, he has had 2 seasons over .845 in his last 3 years, but one was just barely near 350 PAs. .803 OPS ages 22-25 .899 OPS ages 26-30 .826 OPS ages 31-35

Porcello turns 30 this month. He has a long history of durability and dependability. At this age and over the next 2-4 years, he is still capable of having his best career year. Eovaldi turns 29 in February. He's about 15 months younger than Porcello. He's had one season with more than 154 innings. He's had 2 TJ surgeries. I'll agree, he has nastier stuff than Porcello, and in that sense, one can logically argue he has higher upside, but even this year, his WHIP was 1.278. It seems to me, that his short playoff brilliance is being looked upon as what we can expect for 190 innings x 4 years. I think that is a big leap of faith. Expecting Porcello to continue being steady Rick deserves more faith. Look, maybe we can keep both (and let Sale go), but somebody will have to go, if we bring back Eovaldi for 3+ years.

Well, they already look like they won't be as good next year. Keuchel, Morton and Marwin Gonzalez are free agents, and they may not replace them in kind. After 2019: Verlander Cole McHugh Pressly 4th arb: Springer 2nd arb: Osuna, Correa & Devenski 1st arb: Bregman It's not like ours, but they are coming up on some serious and costly choices.

Bruce was just a partial financial offset for Cano. The M's saved $64M, so basically, the Mets are paying Cano $13M a year for 5 years at ages 36-40. That's a horrible contract, but getting Diaz offsets some of that. The real balance tilter will be how well the prospects do going forward. (Diaz will start being paid more as well, but will still be below market value cost.)

Then, can't one rightfully argue that by trading away those types of players (like Espi) takes away from the hopes that our farm was on its way back? We were called pessimists for feeling that way. It just seems like you can't have it both ways. I do have some hope in our longer term prospects. I have stated that I feel the impending cliff (or valley) will be short, in part in my belief that some of these prospects might help in 3-6 years. Our major farm issue, right now, is the neat total lack of any meaningful, ML ready impact prospects. We will need some youth infusion after 2019 and 2020. None of these guys will be ready: Rank Age 2. 18 Casas 3. 20 Groome 7. 19 Mata 8. 18 A Flores 11. 19 Decker 13. 19 Howlett 14. 19 D Diaz 18. 10 Northcut 19. 20 A Scherff 20. 18 G Jimenez I certainly like the above list more than this one... 1. Chavis 23 4. D Hernandez 21 (He might be our best hope.) 5. Dalbec 23 (still in AA) 6. Houck 22 (probably pen bound) 9. Chatham 23 (was in A ball this year) 10. Feltman 21 (Maybe can be very helpful soon) 12. Shawaryn 24 (6 slot starter in probably his ceiling.) 15. Lakins 24 (Could be called up this year.) 16. J Duran 22 (was in A ball this year) 17. Ockimey 23 (was not protected for rule 5)

Notre Dame's other wins are way better than Ohio State's. Even though some of these teams are not currently ranked, they were when we beat them or were in the top 25 at some point this year. Yes, Notre Dame beat #7Michigan and #21 N'Western, but we also beat.... Wake Forest by 29 Va Tech by 22 Pittsburgh by 5 FLA St by 29 #20 Syracuse by 33 USC by 7 OK, Vandy & Ball St. were pushovers, but I would argue that ND has beat better teams than Clemson, and could/should be ranked #2. No way does Georgia, Oklahoma or Ohio St. have a claim against ND.

Good one! Stan the man garden gnome!