notin
-
Posts
53,555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
45
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by notin
-
Ok, but doesn’t a corresponding floor force some other typically disinterested teams back in?
-
The first line is me. I stand by it. I think the majority of players who are negatively affected fall into a category where the negative effect they feel turns into a counterbalancing positive effect for another player…
-
Oh I’m on the very short list of Dalbec supporters, but you have to agree he had some serious stretches where he left the door open for Ockimey. And it’s not like Dalbec’s glove saved him…
-
Probably also worth noting that if a new CBA ever actually gets done, Philly can make a fairly minor move that drastically reduces those odds for Ockimey, like grabbing Dan Vogelbach or Travis Shaw or Corey Dickerson…
-
Well, he was unable to make one in Boston when he was only blocked by a displaced third baseman with contact issues…
-
Tampa might not be “stacked”, but they sure do get a lot of mileage from their little piles…
-
The problem for Ockimey is he fits the same profile as a 100 other minor league free agents and Philly probably has a few equivalent and incomplete players in their own system that can challenge him for a platoon DH role. Sure he might make it, but I wouldn’t really be all that surprised if it was more of the same for him in Philly…
-
I think that the artificial deflation would only affect a few, and making them “suffer” through a $25mill AAV instead of $32mill isn’t exactly a cry that elicits a lot of sympathy. A floor is really needed. And a cap actually makes a floor more palatable to any owner who actually wants to put a good product on the field. And - and this does help the union - increases the total amount of salaried money in the game for players. I think the union needs to concede this point if they can get a good floor. It does become a question of what the floor should be. $50million? $75 million? Is there any number the owners would say “we can live with that.” MLB remains the only sport with these types of levels of economic disparity. Maybe it’s time they got in line…
-
While I understand his enthusiasm and confidence, does anyone think he makes his MLB debut for his hometown team?
-
Mookie did make it sound like testing free agency was important to him. I suppose it’s possible his $400mill counteroffer was not a serious one, either. “Sure I’ll re-sign. For oh maybe half a billion. Or heck - make it $400million.” If we think teams make non-serious offers solely for PR purposes, why do we think players don’t? (And why would anyone think the offer to Lester was for PR only? It netted exactly 0 characters worth of positive ink.) Maybe the pandemic heavily influenced Mookie’s decision more than we realize…
-
That’s all “after the fact” evaluations. Trying to predict who will be considered a good player is completely different…
-
While true, it also has to come down to which demands each side has to surrender. For example, do the earlier free agency proposals offset anything the union wants? This isn’t ever getting resolved if both sides insist on each getting all of their demands…
-
So let’s say the proposal was: 1. Limits as proposed by the owners 2. Similar penalties on a salary floor of $90mill 3. Ditch the arbitration process (which neither side likes) and replace it with restricted free agency (similar to NBA) after 3 years and unrestricted free agency after 5 years Which side says no and why? (Both might be a correct answer here.)
-
Exactly. The MLBPA should focus on those guys. The penalties on the upper tier spenders are an easy concession for them here…
-
Yes and no. It limits the spending of the top spenders, but not having a tax might impact other teams. We’ve all seen dozens of teams sell off players and go into “rebuilding mode” because they felt they were unable to compete today. And despite the colossal failure rate of this strategy with regards to building competing teams, it still happens. Maybe if the bigger spenders actually were capped, it increases the opportunities for other teams to stay competitive rather than just burying season after season with cheap rosters, going through the motions, and selling the fan base that, in the words of Jim Croce, “tomorrow’s gonna be a brighter day.” Well when does tomorrow get to Pittsburgh? Or Cincinnati? Or Kansas City? Or Baltimore?
-
Hard to say, but the spending of the Sox and a few others really isn’t the issue to either side. Not sure why the owners think imposing more stringent penalties on themselves is the issue, especially on the teams already voluntarily playing around the limits. And the players should be less concerned with the spending of the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, Mets, etc. Even if you argue it will limit/prohibit/prevent those teams from exceeding the limits, they’re still the top spenders and are only going to impact 78 players. The primary concern of the MLBPA needs to be creating more spenders at that level, not limiting the teams already doing what they want anyway…
-
Well, the Sox are deterred by third year penalties, not the tax in general. They have exceeded it multiple times…
-
Since most teams never approached the previous limits, these are just attempts to deter a few teams from spending crazy, which by definition of crazy, won’t work. The players need to agree to this now, because it’s really not a big deal. The bigger deal is getting Pittsburgh and Miami and Tampa and Oakland to actually spend. The MLBPA should be ignoring the attempts to curb the top spenders and focus on bringing up the rear. THAT is how they’re going to get more money on to rosters…
-
While I don’t know the answer, they have certainly been big spenders. They gave Gerrit Cole the largest contract for a starting pitcher only 2 years ago…
-
80% of the league feels that way about much lower limits anyway. And when have the Yankees and Dodgers been deterred by a luxury tax?
-
Specifically in the Dodgers’ owner. Aka one of their own. The limit increases are small, but the MLBPA need not balk at tax penalties that only affect 4 or 5 teams anyway. What they need is clauses to assure all penalties go back into ball clubs. Take away the whiny poverty cries from the Pirates and Marlins, etc. and give them cash they are required to spend…
-
It’s actually a stupid proposal by the owners, because they’re asking to penalize themselves for spending. I get they’re trying to impose penalties for spending too much, but this idea is not new and it’s never limited certain iwners anyway. And since the bulk of owners never reached that limit anyway, it’s not really that severe. If I’m head of the MLBPA, I’m ok with these limits, knowing the increased limit really will have a greater impact than the self-imposed tax penalty anyway…
-
So if there is no season, do players still get paid? It’s not like they went on strike; the owners imposed a lockout. If these guys still have to pay, say, Corey Seager $32mill to not play baseball, it might be an incentive for them to recoup their expenses…
-
I’m seriously a lot less optimistic about there being a season….
-
Well, he did work for the Blue Jays for a while…
