S5Dewey

I just wish it had been enough money to keep A-Rod's Yankees-worshiping face off the television.

But at the end of the day aren't they the same thing?

This was exactly the question I asked when the Sox offered Bruce Hurst $4.8M and he went to the Padres for $5.2M. I asked, "What's he going to buy with $5.2M that he can't afford with $4.8M?" (Obviously the answer there is anything that costs $400,000, but still...)

IIRC the Sox had already offered 'Tek a fairly reasonable contract and he turned it down (I assume) on the advice of his agent Bora$$. And you're right, after 'Tek found out that there wasn't as much interest in him as Bora$$ had implied 'Tek went crawling back to the Sox for a much lower salary. This was the final straw for me regarding Bora$$. That's when I realized his motive. An agent's share of, say, $10MM is 5x more than his share of $2MM, and if it doesn't work out for a player like Varitek, so what? He's got plenty of other players. slime.

Well put, Sand. I wish I'd said that. ^^

...and in spite of the fact that history says that most of these players are in their statistically declining years, GM's offer them huge contracts hoping that this player will be the exception.

I'd find it very interesting to see a breakdown of where a team's revenue goes. There's so much more than player's salaries involved in running a team. Scouting, property taxes, trainers, deals with minor league teams, advertising, paying for charter flights & hotel rooms for players. (Just that would run into money at Motel 6! ) and who knows how many hundred more things... just buying baseballs! Everything costs money. But there's huge revenue there too. When you go to a game you see thousands of people in the "Team Store" spending $100+ and paying $3.50 for a bottle of water after they've paid $76 for their ticket. Then $8.50 for a beer that I can get locally for $2.50 on a weekday afternoon. Again, it would be interesting to see an itemized balance sheet written so I could understand it.

On a philosophical basis, yes. However, there are two problems with that philosophy. First if a team has both Kimbrel and say, Kenley Jansen, one to close and the other to put out an early fire, a manager has the potential to burn up his bullpen in a hurry if his starters get in trouble early. Second, you don't know who's going to be up in the 9th. if you burn up both of those guys early in the game and you're facing 3-4-5 with a 1-run lead you're probably wanting a real closer to... close.

And as much as I hate to say it, that's the way it should be in this is the age of "Money Talks". I'm very conflicted on this topic. On the one hand I think Scott Bora$$ is one of the worst things that ever happened to baseball fans (of which I'm one). I believe he bears more responsibility than anyone else for the escalation of salaries and the portability of players. OTOH, he's one of the best things to happen to the players as he's making sure they get their share of the pie - and it appears that it's a really big pie! Since I believe in labor unions I support the players getting the share they deserve. Conflicted. On the third hand, I also believe that the owners are swimming in cash (our cash) so it's hard to work up any sympathy for them. I used to be a fan who wanted players to take less money to stay in their home city. Now after seeing how the FO uses a lower salary as a tool to trade a player and fans make disparaging comments about a player who gets injured after taking a HTD i've changed my mind. I still dislike the long term affects of Bora$$'$ success but I stand behind the players.

Absolutely not kidding, just pointing out the fallacy of WAR in the case of Craig Kimbrel. The Sox won their division by 8 games. Kimbrel was worth 2.3 bWins Above a Replacement level closer. If you think Kimbrel was only responsible for 2.8 more wins than a replacement level closer (that's a pitcher with a WAR of 0.0) I don't know what to tell you.

Retrospect is a wonderful thing. :-)

My issue with the "new wave" of metric based thinking is that too many of those who subscribe to it now believe it's the only way. It's like they think we've turned the corner on baseball and everything you ever thought you knew about baseball is wrong. IMO there's plenty of room for both schools of thought. I believe in OPS as well as choke and clutch. I believe in BAPIP as well as momentum. While I even believe in WAR to a certain degree I tire of those whose who, when confronted with situations where WAR doesn't correlate to real-world baseball, say that they don't believe in WAR 'all that much'. What that means to me is that they firmly believe in WAR when it proves what they want it to prove but they don't believe in it when it conflicts with what's actually happening. JMO!

Um.. No. Craig Kimbrel had a bWAR of 2.3 and an fWAR of 1.5 in 2018, and the Sox won their division by eight games. If you believe in WAR you also have to believe that the Sox would have won their division by 4-6 games with a "replacement level" closer - a closer with a WAR of 0.0.

This is the business side of baseball. For many owners it's not so much a game as it is a business. If an owner can get fans to buy into their "brand" those fans will remain fans through thick and thin. IMO the bottom line of the Red Sox business will benefit for more than one year because of the 2018 season, regardless of how well the team does.

If you believe in WAR then you have to believe that we would have won with a "replacement value" closer (a closer who is well below the league average) in place of Kimbrel. Anyone who actually believes that, please raise your hand.

Yes, but it's only the $1 ticket and not the $25 model. I like the risk/reward attached to Smith.

JH has access to things we don't have. Fairly important things, like the balance sheet. I'm fairly certain that he has a bevy of bean counters who can project the anticipated profit (or loss) of the Boston Red Sox based on whether then go into the playoffs and how deeply they go. I believe they can also do the same thing based on how much the RS pay in salaries and who they pay it to. The rest of us are just talking through our hats when we talk about how much he can "afford". I've mentioned it before but sometimes I'm awestruck by things that point out how much money there is floating around out there in Major League baseball and it's not unreasonable to think that one of the most successful franchises has a lot of it. That doesn't mean that he has to spend it, or even if he will spend it, but it's there.

I haven't seen Ottavino throw. I know he had TJ surgery in 2017 and came back strong in 2018 but I get a little nervous when I see a team with several pitchers who've had that. TJ's aren't always successful long-term. Price has had it, Brasier's had it, and Sale's motion fairly screams, "I'm going to have elbow trouble sooner or later!!". Ottavino may be another good risk, but there IS a risk, especially when we already have two (or three) who may have arm trouble in the future. All of that having been said, yeah, "O" would be my first choice.

To me, being .500 during rebuild is being competitive. I equate it to golf. I once heard someone say that anyone who can play bogey golf won't embarrass themselves no matter who they play with. When they're playing someone who's "scratch" or thereabouts they'll lose - but not lose any hole badly - and when they're playing the duffers they'll win. That's where I see the Sox during the rebuild - as bogey golfers. Which is sort of appropriate given the nickname of our SS.

It's risky, but that's what we're already doing with JDM and Price. If DD and JH want to make one more run at it they may want to pursue that path, then reset after 2019 or 2020. The good news is that we could then reset and keep most of our core (JBJ, Betts, XBo) and still be competitive - if you believe that being .500 during a rebuild is being competitive.

Or maybe we could sign Kimbrel to a 5/[whatever it takes] with an opt out every year. We have a very small window and having him back could be what the team needs to get it over the hump. The problem I see with these opt-outs is that they severely mortgage the future. Let's say that we do get a deal like that from Kimbrel and then Kimbrel, Price and JDM all leave at the same time. (Without looking it up I'm not sure that's possible, but bear with me). We're then left with lots of money to spend but needing a quality starter, a quality reliever, and a quality power hitter. That sound you heard was the window slamming shut. The next sound you heard was the team careening over a cliff. These opt-outs may be the wave of the future for teams who want to target a certain time frame to make a run at a WSC but they're risky too. If the FO guesses wrong about a couple of these players and they don't perform as expected the team is stuck with their salaries when they don't opt out. It'll be interesting to see how these things work out.

??? Only of you consider that post in the context of Moon's discussion about future salaries. I took it to be a general statement - that not signing either of them is a very good thing, something I agree with 1000%.

And as my Mom used to say, "If the dog hadn't stopped to s*** he'd have caught the fox, too". (I come from a family with lots of colorful expressions)

Of course, whipped cream and chocolate fudge is like bacon - it makes nearly everything taste better!

Doesn't it make you wonder just a little bit exactly how much money there is "floating around out there" in Major League baseball? It's no wonder that MLB teams are privately owned and therefore their balance sheets aren't available to shareholders.