His ego probably couldn't handle an opt-out after this season. Because no one would want him next season.
MLB 17-18 Offseason: The Giants are preparing for EYBS' return
- Thread starter Timby
- Start date
- Status
His ego probably couldn't handle an opt-out after this season. Because no one would want him next season.
I have to agree. The more I think about this deal, the more I like it. If you buy into the idea that JD will provide the lineup protection that some believe the Sox desperately need since Ortiz retired, this could make the offense a lot more interesting. If their pitching lives up to the billing, this team could be very, very good.
If he stays healthy. Not his strong suit most of the time he's been in the big leagues.
Depends, though, past problems don't always become future ones. In football, Edelman couldn't stay on the field, until he could. (considering the ACL thing more of a freak occurance, and either way, there was a good amount of time between the early, always hurt Edelman and the stud WR Edelman he became).
Either way, happy with the deal. got him cheap, without promising a million years, and for half of what Boras wanted. And opt-outs could make it a 2/50 deal, which is pretty sweet. Shorter the better, willing to trade future certainty for injury/suckage protection. If he gets hurt, he doesn't leave, but wasn't going to do it anyway on a long term deal without the opt outs. just means in a couple years, have a chance to reset it, or give money to Betts or whatever. Will see the corresponding moves, looks like Brentz got exiled to Pittsburg to open up a spot on the 40-man. May be more coming to clear up the DH/1B/OF logjam, but could roll with what they have if they are creative with playing time.
Either way, happy with the deal. got him cheap, without promising a million years, and for half of what Boras wanted. And opt-outs could make it a 2/50 deal, which is pretty sweet. Shorter the better, willing to trade future certainty for injury/suckage protection. If he gets hurt, he doesn't leave, but wasn't going to do it anyway on a long term deal without the opt outs. just means in a couple years, have a chance to reset it, or give money to Betts or whatever. Will see the corresponding moves, looks like Brentz got exiled to Pittsburg to open up a spot on the 40-man. May be more coming to clear up the DH/1B/OF logjam, but could roll with what they have if they are creative with playing time.
I think you'd have been better off with Logan Morrison for roughly a third of the cost. But, I hope Martinez does well in Boston. They're going to need him to be what he was last year if they have any hope of keeping pace with the Yankees'.
I don't know about that. Sure, the Yankees will hit but what will their pitching be? CC had a bounce back 2017 after several bad seasons. Which Severino will they have, the 2017 version or 2016? Was Tanaka's 2017 season a fluke or an indication of what's to come? Not all that impressed with Sonny Gray. He could be great or could be so so. Who really knows what Montgomery is at this point. Their pen should be good but all their bullpen studs aren't getting any younger.
They could win 100 games or they could win 91 again
The Red Sox despite all the whining about lack of power and offensive down years by several players still managed to win 93 games.
Who really knows what will happen?
Last edited:
The MLBPA has filed a grievance against the Pirates, Rays, Marlins and A's, alleging that they have been misusing their revenue sharing money (under the terms of the CBA, revenue sharing has to be spent on on-field improvements: Player salaries and staff / scouting payroll). It's hard to say they don't have an argument: The Rays, for example, are spending less in payroll this season than their new TV deal gives them on an annual basis. Thanks to revenue sharing, the Marlins get $60 million every year before any other revenue stream is factored in.
Go for it, MLBPA. Crack open those books, get a good audit going and expose those frauds.
Go for it, MLBPA. Crack open those books, get a good audit going and expose those frauds.
I agree. It's time for the concept of a "small market team can't spend the money to compete" to be refined, or eliminated.
Heck, that argument has already fallen apart, since Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Kansas City are all smaller markets than Pittsburgh, yet all of them are more than willing to spend money. The front offices at those bottom-feeder organizations like to poor-mouth about how spending their "financial flexibility" away now will damage their chances to win in the future, but everyone knows at this point that they really don't intend to win, ever.
But if you build them a new stadium... Oops, that doesn't matter either.
Don't forget that every major league team is receiving a payment of at least $50 million next month.
Can this money be used by teams to build new stadiums? I realize that even 50 mil isn't enough but what's to stop teams from stockpiling rev sharing monies and eventually use that to build new parks instead of ludicrously asking the public to pay for them?
The $50 million payout (the precise total is still being calculated, but it's known that the absolute minimum will be $50MM; some project it could be as high as $70MM) that each team is getting is from the proceeds of MLB's sale of BAMTech to Disney. That money can be used for whatever the hell a team feels like: The Marlins will likely allocate it towards debt service since they're so badly leveraged, the A's, Pirates and Rays will likely just pocket it, the Cubs will probably use it to start paying down debt before interest gets insane on the ten-year loan they took out last year, etc. Revenue sharing money, on the other hand, must be allocated towards on-field improvements: The salaries of players and scouts / operations staff, or otherwise "strategic" development (analytics software, for example).
Edit: From the CBA:
Last edited:
Watching the DET/NYY game right now. Somebody want to tell me why the infield fly rule still applies if the ball isn't actually caught?
Under Rules 2.00 and 5.09, the batter is out the instant any umpire calls infield fly. If a fielder intentionally lets the ball drop, however, the ball is live and runners can advance (the batter is still out, however). The putout on a non-caught infield fly is credited to the fielder nearest to the ball.
The whole reason the infield fly rule exists is so teams can't run a fake play, acting like they're going to catch the ball, then suddenly let it drop, as that would create a force play or plays.
Last edited:
Apparently, Braves fans did not agree when this happened back in '12.
The issue there is that ball should never have been called an infield fly. Rule 2.00 says the infield fly rule applies to balls that an infielder can catch "with ordinary effort." It was a good 30 feet, at least, past the baseline. The umpire didn't even call infield fly until the ball was about a half-second away from landing, which destroys the entire purpose of the infield fly rule.
Terrible, terrible call on the umpire's part and Atlanta fans had every right to be infuriated.
Thank you!
- Status