moonslav59

Well, we know now that Betts' cost will likely not be $9M. It will be either $7.5M or $10.5M. Let's assume we go over the limit by $39M (just below the third tier limit). We pay 20% on the first $20M, which is $4M. We'd pay 32% on the next $19M, which is about $6.1M. In total, the tax alone would be about $10M.

Out of the top 11 long-term, mega contracts on my list, 8 began at age 30 or older and 4 began at age 32 or older. ARod's first contract, Kershaw's deal and Stanton's are the only ones beginning at age 25 to 26.

I live in Sugar Land, Texas- just Southwest of Houston. They are a fun team to watch, and they are managed very well. The Cole trade was a steal. I'm very surprised nobody could top that offer, even a team like the Sox with a depleted farm. Word is, the two prospects the Pirates got were "throw-in" types.

I think the appearance of D Hernandez and L Cedrola in the top 10 shows how close to each other non top prospects can be. They are very hit-or-miss. Groome, Chavis, Houck and Mata seem to be the consensus top 4 that are separated by a wide gap between them and the others.

One way small market teams replenish their farm is to sign their stars, even to (usually back-ended) contracts they know they cannot pay, knowing they will just trade them when the cost per year gets too high. It's a successful strategy- not fiscal irresponsibility. Yes, sometimes they sign a promising player to a contract and that player does not "play to the value", and they get stuck with an untradeable player, but most of the time, the strategy works. The Rays have mastered this plan. The Marlins have a long history of signing big contracts then dumping them, sometimes right after a ring.

The public pays for the stadium. We'd probably be surprised at how much the owners actually made (make) when everything is factored in.

Way more than he made year by year combined.

If the Yanks can get darvish for under $100M/5, the Sox should offer $105M/5, and then sign Morrison to $30M/2. That's about what JD might get combined..

The biggest "killing" comes when the owner sells his team, That is something that is often lost when viewing how the money is split up.

I'm sure the average everyday worker would love to see their share go up at just 17% less than the big wigs' share.

It's hard for the union to bargain for more money for players before they reach free agency without giving up some of the massive deals some free agents get. You'd think they'd want a system where everyone gets paid more. In most union settings, the unions try to make things best for the senior most menbers with the idea that everyone will reach that point at some time, but only a select few make the mega bucks in MLB.

Yes, exactly. Had they grandfathered Castillo, maybe he'd get a quick look at some point.

Compared to most FA contracts over 6 or 7 years, where most years are beyond 32 or 33 years old, Stanton's deal looks totally reasonable. I brought up the Pujols' deal as an example of one of the worst, but most turn out bad to rotten. Top 25 signings by total dollars (Not all free agent signings) (Look at the ration of years beyond 32 or 33. Most do not have more years below age 31, like Stanton's does.) $325M/13 Stanton (age 25 to 37) $275M/10 ARod (32 to 41) $252M/10 ARod (25 to age 34) $248M/8 Miggy (33-40) $240M/10 Pujols (32-41) $240M/10 Cano (31-40) $225M/10 Votto (30-39) $217M/7 Price (30-36) $215M/7 Kershaw (26-32) $210M/7 Scherzer (30-36) $207M/6 Greinke (32-37) $189M/10 Jeter (27-36) $184M/8 Mauer (28-35) $184M/8 Heyward (26-33) $180M/8 Teixeira (29-36) $180M/7 Verlander (30-36) $175M/7 Felix H. (27-33) $175M/7 Strasburg (28-34) $167M/9 Posey (26-34) $161M/7 Sabathia (28-34) $161M/7 Chris Davis (30-36) $160M/8 Manny (29-36) $160M/8 Kemp (27-34) $158M/10 Tulo (26-35) Others over 8+ years $152M/8 Miggy (to 2015) $142M/9 Helton (to 2011) $138M/9 D Wright (to 2020) $136M/8 A Soriano (to 2014) $121M/8 Mike Hampton (to 2008) $117M/9 Ken Griffey Jr (to 2008) $110M/8 Pedroia (to 2021) Note: if JD Martinez signs for 6 years, it would be from ages 30.5 to 35.5.

It was not "wrong". It was legal and not even close to unethical. Castillo and Craig were not good enough to make the 25 man roster. Any team in the league was free to take them off our hands. The fact that the league changed the rules does not mean the Sox did anything wrong. Certainly, the situation is unfortunate in some ways, but bot players got paid what they were supposed to get paid, and neither played well enough to deserve to be on the big club. It's not much different from the Dodgers buying out CC's last year of his contract and cutting him loose. The only difference is the luxury tax implications. Is it ethical for an injured player to continue collecting his salary? Of course, it is. Is it fair to the team? Just as fair as Castillo still getting paid.

Their ethical obligation is to pay him millions (while they get nothing from him). Castillo has had a leading role in his current situation. He didn't earn a continued role on the 25 man roster. BTW, Bernie Madoff thrived for decades.

13 years would be absurd for a 29 or 30 year old- not 25. To me, the Pujols contract was absurd, even though that was just 10 years.

Of course the risk factor is very high. Of course Stanton's contract looks too long and too expensive, but if he had been a FA at the time he signed that deal, he'd have gotten as much or more than that. To me, that means it is not "absurd" despite it being an overpay. He was 25 the first year of the 13 year deal. He'll have 8 years out of the 13 (62%) at ages 25-32. Most big FA signings are the opposite with 60-70% of the long term deals after age 32. Even the seasons between 33 and 35 should be productive. That makes it 11 out of 13 seasons (85%) between 25 and 35. There are really only 1-3 seasons that look like he might produce below his pay suggests he should. I'd have no problem with the Sox having that contract with a 25 year old player. I get the point about Miami not being able to afford his contract, but they knew when they offered it, he'd be traded at some point. It was part of the plan. The fact that Jeter & Co, panicked and took a low ball offer should not take away from the fact that the contract was very much in line with open market rates.

With what the Astros gave up, we could have outbid them had we wanted to, without sacrificing our future or opening a major hole on our current 25 man roster. A deal like ERod, Hembree and Beeks looks better, to me. Cole replaces ERod/Wright as our #5 starter, and we have several RP'ers near the same quality as Hembree, but who have options remaining.

But do we know when Morrison or Moose are close to signing elsewhere? I'm not sure, but DD could tell their agents that we are waiting on JD, but consider your client plan B. We'd like you to wait, if you can, or at least give us a heads up, when your client is close to accepting a contract elsewhere and we may better the offer. Maybe that strategy is not realistic, but if I was Morrison, I'd wait, unless the other team is saying "now or never." IMO JD is the best fit for the Sox and the Sox may be the best "fit" for him when the money is considered. Frankly, I'm tired of being held hostage to someone who's holding out for another year on his contract while being offered >$100MM. In fact, the longer he drags this out the less sure I am that I want him on the team anyway. He's not really "the best fit", since we already have a DH making $22M and three young accomplished OF'ers. He's only a "fit" in the sense that we need a clean-up hitter, and we have the ability to pay him more than any other apparent bidders. We should not be held hostage. If anything, he should be crawling to us. There's no way the Jays should outbid us. If I'm DD I contact Bora$$ this morning and make it clear that '"5/current offer" is all the Sox are going to do and JD has 48 hours to make up his mind. And if he opts not to, well, I hope he enjoys not contending for a division championship and not contending for a ring.' I'm not sure we are at that point of urgency. I think, as fans, we are getting frustrated, but I'd hate to miss out on getting JD at an acceptable rate, that may have ended up being more than he ends up getting, just because he chose not to rush into a deal we demanded he take or else. If we view the time is getting close, where we may lose our secondary options, then yes, set a time limit and be prepared to move on.

I disagree. We could have offered as much as ERod, Hembree and Beeks, which has nothing to do with JD.

So, how about ERod, Hembree and Beeks?

It's not absurd. Someone may sign JD to play to the same age GS's contract but without the prime years that come before.

If a contract is not absurd, because the player deserves that kind of money on the open market, it can be traded away for useful pieces. Plus, they did not have to trade GS. They cut the $30M needed with other moves. They chose to trade away more than what they needed to do for two reasons: 1) To make more money for the new owners 2) To gather as many prospects as possible for extended future success.

JD's Potential for Falling off a Cliff https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/j-d-martinezs-potential-for-falling-off-a-cliff/

Baseball Prospectus has this for our top 10: 1. Groome 2. Chavis 3. Mata 4. Houck 5. Ockimey 6. Shawaryn 7. Brannen 8. Scherff 9. Lorenzo Cedrola (Ranked 31st on soxprospects.com) 10. Travis