S5Dewey

Because baseball teams are privately owned we don't know how much money they make with a playoff run. We can only speculate and our speculation is based on our own assumptions. We can probably assume that they don't lose money but we have no idea how much they will make. Any number we make up is a WAG. From a financial standpoint tanking isn't a bad idea, especially for a team with a smaller fan base than say, the Red Sox or the Yankees. They can collect the Competitive Balance Tax, that money that gets returned to them by MLB to make baseball more COMPETITIVE, and pocket it with no risk of dealing with the issues that the bigger market teams face. There's a big risk in paying big salaries in long term contracts to players based on prior performance knowing that these players will age out of their prime years. Paying these salaries is a gamble and the tanking owners are taking the more conservative strategy. Minimum risk = minimum loss or minimum gain. Large risk = maximum loss or minimum gain.

And therein lies a part of the problem. There are owners who could use the COMPETITIVE Balance Tax to actually make baseball more competitive "but nothing forces them to". It brings the (I think) logical question of, 'If they're not going to use the CBT money to make their team move competitive then why should they get any of it?'

IMHO this situation is entirely on the owners. It takes a lot of arrogance for owners to sign some players to multi-million dollar contracts and then lock the players out under the guise of "We're not making enough money".

This is what's referred to in my home as a "first world problem" - having so much talent that the FO can't afford to pay them all. A certain female poster here has made a believer out of me when she says that long term contracts may be beneficial to the team in the short run but committing to a player for 8-10 years is folly. Not only is the player going to age past their prime, but younger players are going to be reaching their prime at a much lower cost. Of course this is all a part of the salary structure which the player's union is trying to rectify now by getting the younger elite players more money sooner in their careers. If the players union is successful teams may be able to sign elite talent at age 20 to a 10 year contract without having a 34 year old albatross around their necks.

If one compares Lowell's offensive stats with JBJ's offensive stats Lowell will always come out ahead. JBJ's offense will never compare with Lowell's. OTHO Lowell has an average career dWAR of 0.2 while JBJ's average dWAR is 1.5. I'm not trying to say that JBJ is a better player, only that there's more to baseball than offensive stats. All of this doesn't alter the fact that the trade was actually Hanley and Anibel Sanchez for Josh Beckett. Lowell (and a few other guys) were throw-ins and Beckett turned out to be by far the best of the throw-ins.

It's become obvious to people who follow the Sox that the configuration of the Fenway outfield requires two players with the capability to play CF well. I know I'm probably in the minority here but IMO while Bradley was considered a throw-in with the trade for two prospects he also was acquired to fill a defensive gap in the 2021 outfield. I see him getting another chance to prove that his offensive liabilities are offset by his stellar defense. Remember, Mike Lowell was a throw-in too.

I'm one of those pro-labor guys and I DO have a problem with trading players for more reasons than the one you mentioned. However, I'm also a Red Sox fan and a baseball fan and as such I recognize the downside for the players. I've long said to my friends that as great as the life of a professional baseball player looks from the outside it has a definite downside. In addition to being worried about being unwillingly uprooted and moving to a new city there's also the day to day issue of being away from ones family for a week or more, and going to the ballpark at 3:00 pm for a night game and getting home at midnight just to do the same thing the next day, followed by a 10 day road trip away from the family. Parts of it suck but the good parts and the money make up for it or else they'd find another line of "work". However, as a fan of the game I also recognize that THEY recognize that it's a part of the game. That's the life they bought into when they decided they want to play Major League Baseball. Therefore my dislike of seeing my favorite players being traded is rooted my own selfishness in knowing that I'm not going to see them play 150 games next year. IMO I can be called selfish for wanting my favorite players to stay in Boston. They can be called selfish for being MLB players and being willing to leave me. I'd call it a draw.

But MLB isn't capitalism in it's strictest sense. The Federal Government is colluding with MBL by granting the anti-trust exemption. Amazon, WalMart, etc., companies that are operating under the capitalistic principles are subject to the laws governing interstate commerce where MLB is not. MLB’s antitrust exemption resulted from a 1922 Supreme Court ruling that stated, somewhat incredulously, that the business of Major League Baseball did not constitute “interstate commerce,” thus making it exempt from the Sherman Act, which prevents businesses from conspiring with one another in an effort to thwart competition. This anti-trust exemption has given teams the right to operate as a defacto monopoly even though there are several teams operating in several states. IMO this is a pretty good read on MLB's anti-trust exemption, the history of it, and how it affects baseball. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2021/04/13/mlb-antitrust-exemption-immunity-ted-cruz-josh-hawley-baseball-all-star-game/7211552002/

Sorting it out now... He'll get $6MM in salary in 2022. If he Sox decline the 2023 option he'll get an additional $4MM bringing him to $10MM for 2022. If the club picks up his option for 2023 he won't get the $4MM but instead will get $13MM for 2023 and they will have paid him $19MM over two years. At the end of 2023 the Sox will have another chance to decline his option. If they exercise that option Paxton walks away with no additional money but if they accept the option he will get $13MM for 2024. Correct?

If he washes out completely it's not $35M, it's $10M and cut him after one season. If he lasts into the second season the cost is ~$12.5 more and IMO well worth the gamble. Hey, when you're MLB what's $10M, more or less?

"According to a major league source, the Red Sox have reached an agreement, pending a physical, with lefthander James Paxton on a one-year, $10 million deal for 2022 that includes a two-year club option for the 2023-24 seasons. If the option is exercised, the deal could be worth as much as $35 million." -Alex Speier in today's Globe

All I'm counting on from Paxton in 2022 is a glimpse of what he could be. This deal isn't entirely unlike the Sale deal only in smaller numbers. The Sox gave up a lot in prospects to sign a guy whose motion practically SCREAMED "TJ SURGERY!". The Sox signed him knowing that there was a good chance that he'd lose a year or more to the surgery not being sure how it would work out, but the upside was huge and made it worthwhile. In the case of Paxton they're not paying a king's ransom to get him and it's somewhat the same thing a Sale with smaller numbers and lower expectations.

I like the Paxton signing. Some pitchers come back stronger after TJ surgery. Paxton should be ready to go mid-season and Bloom is willing to pay $10M to gamble that he will come back stronger - or at least as good as he was in his late 20's. If he comes back like the Paxton of old he's worth probably $10M in today's market and if he comes back stronger he's a bargain at $10M. OTOH if he comes back a bust they're only out one year and "only" $10M.

The MLB players are the cream of the crop of baseball players and we as fans are willing to pay an exorbitant amount of money to see them play. What I find interesting is that while we question paying Scherzer $43.3MM a year, the Mets must figure he can make more than that for the owners. I find it mind-boggling how much money there is floating around out there in Major League Baseball.

How does one team play one player $43MM a year and have MLB maintain any credibility at the bargaining table?

Well, I like to believe that I'm one of the moderately knowledgeable fans and I do think that a pitcher's W-L record matters (to some degree). It at least matter to Scott Boras when it comes time to negotiate a pitcher's salary - which is very important to the pitcher whom Boras is representing. That's the point I was making when I said that no starting pitcher is going to be happy with 3-4 innings when wins is a part of a pitcher's salary negotiations. Take two starting pitchers, one of whom is 0-9 with an era of 1.5 and averages 3 IP per appearance (once through the order) or a starting pitcher who is 7-2 with an ERA of 3.0 with an average of 6 IP. Who's going to make more money? That's why I would suppose that starting pitchers are hoping that the idea of having 'openers' doesn't catch on.

More than that, no starting pitcher is going to be happy with 3-4 innings when they need five innings to pick up a Win. Whether we like it or not, in the real world Wins is one barometer of how well a pitcher is pitching and therefore part of the basis for their salaries.

I can't wait until Kimmi sees THIS! :D

That's not what you're hearing from me. Yes, I DO want them to get every call right but not at the expense of "dehumanizing the game". I can live with the garden variety missed calls but at the same time I want the umpire to know immediately when he's made an egregiously bad call. I want that for two reasons. First I want the hitter to have every fair opportunity to hit the ball - something he doesn't have when an umpire makes a call so bad that we all go, "Ugh". But second and maybe more importantly I want that umpire to be publicly corrected, not for any vindictive reason but as an incentive to make his 'game' better. Without that the bad calls are usually forgotten within a couple of batters and the umpire is validated. Hence, I want hitters/managers to have a limited number of "challenges" of b/s calls in a game.

This certainly is viable but I hope it doesn't happen. This is one of those situations where he might want to sign a "Team friendly" contract. Players get traded because the trading team believes they can upgrade themselves by trading one player for several and IMO JDM will be worth his "team friendly"contract 2-3 years down the road. He's still a professional hitter and his knowledge and preparation won't wane in the next few years to the point where he's easily replaceable as a DH. However... the flip side is the reason I don't want him to opt out. Players rarely - it happens but not often - leave a team and then immediately come back. See: Jon Lester and Mookie Betts. Some of us had that pipe dream that these two might leave and then come back and it didn't happen. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Why make a trade at all? See my above post about challenges.

This what I referred to a few days ago. Rather than go to robo-umps let hitters/managers challenge a pitch with a limited number of challenges per game. I could live with the umpire making a mistake if it didn't give the pitcher license to throw that same unhittable pitch again I tend to go back to the sequence with JDM in the playoffs when an unhittable pitch was called a strike. The problem is that once an umpire calls an unhittable pitch a strike he feels the need to be "consistent"... so when the pitcher throws the next pitch in the same place (unhittable) he calls that one a strike, too! It's not the pitcher's fault - heck, I'd do the same thing if I were pitching. It's not the batter's fault that he was thrown an unhittable pitch and it was called a strike. Hitters have a right to expect any pitch called a strike to be a hittable pitch. SO that leaves the blame for a batter not being given an opportunity to get a hit squarely on the shoulders of the umpire. Calls like that can change a game and therefore an entire season. Giving the batter/manager the right to challenge a pitch by going to the K-zone (or whatever it's called now) will level the playing field between the pitcher and the hitter without going "all robo-umps". It'll keep the pitchers more honest and it'll give the hitters potential recourse when they see an unhittable pitch called a strike. In a bigger picture, with playoff spots frequently decided by a game or two it's entirely possible that situations like this throughout the season have an impact on who even makes the playoffs!

I agree with this (in bold)^^ but I'm not sure what the answer would be. The rule is quite specific now in that a runner who is not in contact with a base is in jeopardy of being tagged out. If we change the rule to include a runner's momentum carrying them beyond the bag aren't we opening the door to runners intentionally overrunning the base, which would essentially almost eliminate sliding? That's a change I wouldn't want to see.

The thing I find astounding about those numbers is that most of the b/s calls are no-brainers, stuff your dog could call right. That means that Bellino must have called most of the borderline (or sometimes even pitches that weren't borderline) pitches wrong!

I watched the game Saturday night and it appeared that the yokel behind the plate was a walking commercial for robo-umps. There were numerous pitches high and inside to a right-handed hitter that showed the ball completely inside the "imaginary box" that were called a ball. I can understand an ump occasionally missing a call on a close pitch but this guy had his own strike zone and it didn't coincide with the one in the rule book.