notin
-
Posts
52,216 -
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
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by notin
-
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…
-
Because no one wants to wait for Pablo Sandoval to waddle over to short RF every time a left-handed hitter comes up. Baseball has enough “pace of play” problems as it is…
-
Arauz’ ceiling might not even be Yolmer Sanchez. But for a DFA candidate, I think he is still behind Hunter Potts and Jeisson Rosario…
-
Agreed. I like this signing, but the guy is only looking at maybe 40-50 PA tops unless something goes terribly wrong…
-
The Lester offer was a clear lowball. Different story altogether…
-
$300 mill is pretty risky for PR purposes. I have no reason to believe the offer wasn’t legitimate. I hold the FO accountable for maybe not negotiating further, but I find a $300 mill PR stunt ludicrous…
-
I agree. $300 million is a pretty steep offer to float out there if you don’t mean it…
-
He’s gone from “solution at shortstop” to “Plan B for utility infielder,” but he’s still a good gamble…
-
Iggy didn’t look much like Iggy last year at shortstop either. The Angels didn’t let him walk for playing too much defense …
-
Sox sign Yolmer Sanchez. Gold Glover. Decent player. Probably limited to being a role player in very limited time. https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/02/red-sox-sign-yolmer-sanchez-to-minors-contract.html
-
Why does comparing him to Gordon equate to hating Benintendi?
-
He was talking about the other players there…
-
But will they limit themselves to one player making over $20mill?
-
At some point, the Sox are going to have to spend, and spend heavily on a player. Correa may or may not be the guy, but it’s not like Bogaerts is going to “settle” for a $20mill AAV again.
-
Why not: 1b: Dalbec/Casas(?) 2b: Bogaerts 3b: Devers SS: Correa LF: Verdugo CF: E Hernandez RF: Bradley/Pham(?) ?
