Red Sox/MLB 2023 Regular Season VII - White Sox clean out the front office
- Thread starter smithformeragent
- Start date
- Status
BruinsFanSince94
The Perfect Fan ™
This thread in a nutshell:
Sox winning? Bitch about the team not spending money
Sox losing? Bitch about the team losing and how they don't spend money
All while the Red Sox continue to spend money. What a world!
Sox winning? Bitch about the team not spending money
Sox losing? Bitch about the team losing and how they don't spend money
All while the Red Sox continue to spend money. What a world!
McGarnagle
Yes.
- Aug 5, 2017
- 30,457
- 41,852
What does Sam Kennedy actually do? His title implies that he should be responsible for day-to-day operations of the team.The paradox with the Red Sox is they are still drawing
View attachment 736080
FSG seems to be content that Fenway's true capacity is around 34,000
Janet Marie Smith is now saying she was not fired by the Red Sox but the City of Boston landmarks department would not allow a major reconstruction of the RF Grandstand and Bleachers.
The reality is the Sox are controlled by a woman who turns 45 years old next week.
Werner would love to get proxy control of the team but it is not likely.
KrejciMVP
Registered User
of course he is, it's unbelievable some of the cases being made like its the sox duty to send a message or draw a line in the sand against big contracts. give me a break
BruinsFanSince94
The Perfect Fan ™
Media mouthpiece so ownership doesn't have to answer questions
And you guys go the complete other way with it thinking the Sox should give every single player massive contracts as if it's the only way to compete in baseball.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
Media mouthpiece so ownership doesn't have to answer questions
And you guys go the complete other way with it thinking the Sox should give every single player massive contracts as if it's the only way to compete in baseball.
No, but its indefensible and a really bad look to dump a 26 year old homegrown MVP and WS winner because you didnt want to pay his upcoming deal.
I mean, all he's done in the 3+ seasons since then is add 2,5 in MVP voting, 2 gold gloves, another WS ring and what looks to be another MVP Top 3 and gold glove this year.
BruinsFanSince94
The Perfect Fan ™
GatorMike
Registered User
Let's make a couple of assumptions...
1. Mookie would have signed the same contract in Boston that he eventually signed in Los Angeles.
2. Given the state of the team (Bad contracts, aging roster, lack of young talent on the immediate horizon, etc.) following the 2019 season, the Red Sox made the assessment that they would have a very difficult time competing for the next 3-4 seasons.
Betts was 27 when he was traded. The average player's peak is between ages 26-31. Why would it have made sense for the Red Sox to hand out a $365 million contract in the hopes that they might get 2-3 seasons of peak Mookie where they could surround him with enough talent to compete?
The question isn't whether or not Mookie was worth his deal. The question is whether or not he was worth that kind of deal to the Red Sox.
Sure, a team like the Dodgers or Yankees or even the Red Sox can overcome a "bad" contract, but why would they want to? It seems like a very inefficient way to run your team. Isn't it better to sign your young guys long-term at an earlier age like the Braves, Rays, and Mariners did with Austin Riley, Wander Franco, and Julio Rodriguez respectively?
I mean, 13-years, $365 million for ages 28-41 of Mookie Betts, or 10-years, $212 million for ages 26-36 of Austin Riley. I know which deal I'd pick.
When you sign guys like Mookie to the kind of deal that he got, you better pretty sure that you're signing the right guy at the right time. Mookie was probably the right guy, but I'd argue that the timing wasn't right.
If you're good at your job you can supplement the team with young talent? Agreed... but you can't necessarily do it immediately. The fact that Chaim Bloom went to Yale isn't going to turn Michael Chavis into a Major League hitter or Darwinzon Hernandez into someone who can throw strikes.
I don't think I ever argued that.
I have to stop here because I think you're just operating in a fantasy land where every contract has to be to the benefit of the team from day one of the contract till the very last day. If pro sports worked this way no top free agent would ever be signed by anyone. Surely the contract Ohtani will get will end up being a bad contract at the end. So should nobody sign him?
GatorMike
Registered User
Austin Riley has three years of service time, and the Braves are paying him $15 million.
They could have taken him to arbitration and paid him a fraction of this amount. The "overpayment" is coming at the front end of the contract instead of the end.
And yes... committing $100+ million in salary to players after they turn 35 years of age is generally pretty risky.
The paradox with the Red Sox is they are still drawing
View attachment 736080
FSG seems to be content that Fenway's true capacity is around 34,000
Janet Marie Smith is now saying she was not fired by the Red Sox but the City of Boston landmarks department would not allow a major reconstruction of the RF Grandstand and Bleachers.
The reality is the Sox are controlled by a woman who turns 45 years old next week.
Werner would love to get proxy control of the team but it is not likely.
Yes/no. Yes they're not winning which is what usually draws people. OTOH they have all of New England to draw on and there are people who still like to watch baseball live or just want to visit Fenway Park.
Who in your opinion is worse- Werner or Mrs. Henry? To me they're both poison
I know there is risk. There is risk in signing Trevor Story to the deal he got. There is risk in signing anybody to a $100m deal. But taking a risk doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't do it. So I am kinda confused on your stance here. Should nobody in baseball sign Ohtani? Because I have no doubt you will view the contract as a bad one.
I was skeptical at first but once I understood the rules I liked it a lot. Looked like everyone was having fun!
BruinsFanSince94
The Perfect Fan ™
BruinsFanSince94
The Perfect Fan ™
Can finally sit down and watch some Sox tonight! Excited and hope they can keep close the gap against a weak Nats team.
GatorMike
Registered User
No, I'm not saying that no team should sign Ohtani.
I'm saying that the kind of deal he's likely to get is a calculated risk. The back half of Ohtani's deal is likely to be very painful. GM/Owners need to evaluate whether or not they're in position to take full advantage of the remaining years of Ohtani's prime.
smithformeragent
Moderator
The uniform ads in every sport are f***ing stupid, bushleague, and I hate them.
However, the Nationals having their advertisement patch above their uniform logo sleeve patch takes things to a whole ‘nother level.
The part of me that wants to see the world burn would love to see them cover the entire uniform in patches at this point.
f*** it.
However, the Nationals having their advertisement patch above their uniform logo sleeve patch takes things to a whole ‘nother level.
The part of me that wants to see the world burn would love to see them cover the entire uniform in patches at this point.
f*** it.
smithformeragent
Moderator
At some point, sooner rather than later, his pitching career probably ends.
And at that point you’re probably paying the richest contract ever for a designated hitter.
Still can be a valuable player if that’s the case, but if he’s not also pitching he loses a ton of value.
And I'd prefer the Red Sox be a team that is ok taking a calculated risk on Babe Ruth 2.0. Letting Bogaerts go but signing Devers? I can live with that. What I can't live with is passing on any big signing just because there is risk involved.
Why do you say that about his pitching career? He could just be a freak. Verlander still going at his age. There are others. Ohtani is only 29.
Casas is such a weirdo but I love it lol.
EverettMike
FIRE DON SWEENEY INTO THE SUN
quietbruinfan
Salt and light
- Status
