Originally Posted by mvp 78
Wow - revenue sharing guaranteeing profitability to all irrespective of what the actual product on the field looks like. That was a good read. I could go off on a wild tangent right now but I don't want Hitch to get upset with me. I'm really glad that someone in their infinite wisdom is willing to help out some of these mega rich losers though. It is the right thing to do. lol
Yup agreed. It's just not a very good list of players this year, and next year is a huge one. That's why I hold up hope we get JD for a very reasonable amount. The market is depressed at the top end this year which is very handy for us.
edit: Me cp? Now you HAVE TO go for it.
Not gonna budge one inch -Yup agreed. It's just not a very good list of players this year, and next year is a huge one. That's why I hold up hope we get JD for a very reasonable amount. The market is depressed at the top end this year which is very handy for us.
edit: Me cp? Now you HAVE TO go for it.
If it's about free market principles helping a sport/club thrive or not, I think there is a very interesting discussion to be had there, without even touching politics.
Boston Herald columnist Michael Silverman tweets that the Red Sox have offered J.D. Martinez "roughly $125 million over five years":
https://twitter.com/MikeSilvermanBB/...48404456902657
I wonder what the best offer is.
You shouldn't have to wonder any more.Boston Herald columnist Michael Silverman tweets that the Red Sox have offered J.D. Martinez "roughly $125 million over five years":
https://twitter.com/MikeSilvermanBB/...48404456902657
I wonder what the best offer is.
What team do you think has made the best offer to date?You shouldn't have to wonder any more.
No one outside of the parties involved really know. The suggestions by writers that I have read have been all over the place. Roughly 125 million - really - What does that even really mean. If the offer went roughly from 100 to 125 all of a sudden, that tells me that someone is trying to scoop a story before they really know what the actual facts might be. One thing all Red Sox fans here seem to agree on is that the Red Sox probably have laid out the best offer to date and that there really isn't some mystery team scheming in the weeds waiting to pounce.You shouldn't have to wonder any more.
I have no issue with a luxury tax. It's meant to keep teams with larger markets from gaining a competitive advantage just because of their geography. The problem I have is with teams who don't spend at all. If you're gonna punish teams who spend too much, you should also punish teams who don't spend enough. Why should teams like LA, NY and Boston subsidize smaller market teams just so they can put out shit lineups so that their owners can pocket an extra 20 mill??
Last edited by bkzwhitestrican; 01-19-2018 at 04:40 PM.
From ESPN staff writer Scott Lauber this morning:Boston Herald columnist Michael Silverman tweets that the Red Sox have offered J.D. Martinez "roughly $125 million over five years":
https://twitter.com/MikeSilvermanBB/...48404456902657
I wonder what the best offer is.
http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/red-...s-what-we-knowIt might take a few more weeks, perhaps even stretching into spring training, but it still makes the most sense for everyone involved that the Red Sox and Martinez get together on a deal for, say, six years and $180 million.
Both sides need each other too much for it not to happen.
An excellent question! Lay an answer on him Hitch. You know what mine might be due to the fact that I am a card carrying capitalist.
I will be bold enough to predict that Martinez is not getting any $180 million.
As you have said, MLBTR is pretty good with their predictions, and I think their prediction of 6/$150 is as high as anyone is going to go.
I get your point and don't necessarily disagree, but what if that team making that "extra $20M" thanks to larger market teams paying them off still makes just a small fraction of the profit the big teams make?
In what other business besides sports do people play (on the road) in front of millions of people and viewers and not get a cent from the gate or TV package?
I always felt like the gate and TV money should be split 505-50 between the home and away teams. Big market teams would still make more as half their games are in their market, but the split would be more fair in several ways.
Teams might start complaining when they walk away NY City with a big pay check and then go on a road trip to Oakland and make peanuts.
@jcmccaffrey
Ortiz also said he sees a little of himself in Rafael Devers
Revenue sharing and the luxury tax are different things tho.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote