Real MLB Thread

[CTWarrior]

I'm largely on board with this, but ownership has a cross to bear here, too.

It doesn't make sense to bring in Dombrowski if you see the luxury tax as a hard salary cap - especially if you're the Red Sox. He's always going to spend money and Boston is always going to have it. And its not like he's totally screwed them over, Boston's luxury tax bill this year is $13,000. The farm system drop is more due to promotions than wasteful trades - Benintendi, Devers, Sam Travis, Marco Hernandez, and Michael Chavis were all in the top 10 in their system in 2017 and are all on the big league roster now.

I think this is as much an organizational turn/scapegoat for having misread how teams would - ahem - implicitly agree not to spend money after the new CBA.  Sure, paying $60M to Price and Sale isn't great, but its also not fatal to paying Betts - unless you're straight up unwilling to live in the tax (the Eovaldi deal will always be bad).

I agree with you, for the most part.  You always have to blame upper management because they have to agree to the deals, too.  They brought in a guy who does a specific thing, and he did that specific thing well, leaving the issues he always leaves.  Not to mention that he can't unilaterally decide to pay whatever he wants to whoever he wants. 

I don't think Dombrowski failed at all.  But what he does best is not what the Sox need now, so they are moving on.  Frankly, I think they would be more consistently good if they never hired him, given that the good core gathered by Cherington before they showed him the door, but he gave them a shorter window with a better shot at a World Series championship and fortunately they got it. 

One other smart thing he did when trading all the prospects was making sure the Red Sox held on to Devers at all costs.  That kid is special.

[MU82]

I sense that someone will pass the Cubs for the last spot. Not playing great and .500 ball down the stretch will not do it.

Hard to believe that could happen to a team with so much high-priced talent, but it wouldn't be stunning. Lots of injuries, slumps and other bad juju going on now.

[JWags85]

Hard to believe that could happen to a team with so much high-priced talent, but it wouldn't be stunning. Lots of injuries, slumps and other bad juju going on now.

The talent isnt totally that high priced, most of their key position players outside of Heyward are from within the organization and reasonably priced.  Its the pitching that was pricey and has been disastrous.

People mocked Cubs fans for not being pro-Maddon but this is a second straight year in their window that they are fading down the stretch. He's a chemistry, clubhouse, good juju guy and they just don't have it any more.  Time to give him a special advisor role in the FO, get a cheaper manager, and move on.

The front office messed up with pitching.  Paying $12MM to Chatwood who is a bum and now a reliever, I never like Darvish (hes been better but still is wildly inconsistent), and you knew Lester would get old and he did what he was brought in to do, but you don't expect a guy making $30MM to fall off as hard and as fast as he has.

They aren't out of it, but no Baez, the ghost of Lester every 5 days, and no closer....its not promising

[MU82]

The talent isnt totally that high priced, most of their key position players outside of Heyward are from within the organization and reasonably priced.  Its the pitching that was pricey and has been disastrous.

People mocked Cubs fans for not being pro-Maddon but this is a second straight year in their window that they are fading down the stretch. He's a chemistry, clubhouse, good juju guy and they just don't have it any more.  Time to give him a special advisor role in the FO, get a cheaper manager, and move on.

The front office messed up with pitching.  Paying $12MM to Chatwood who is a bum and now a reliever, I never like Darvish (hes been better but still is wildly inconsistent), and you knew Lester would get old and he did what he was brought in to do, but you don't expect a guy making $30MM to fall off as hard and as fast as he has.

They aren't out of it, but no Baez, the ghost of Lester every 5 days, and no closer....its not promising

Well, the Cubs did open the season with the second-highest payroll in the majors, only a few million behind the Red Sox and actually ahead of the Yankees and Dodgers. And they since have committed big money to their injured closer.

So whether pitchers, position players or whatever, they have a lot of high-priced players. If you want to say their high-priced players aren't "talent," that's up to you.

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

[#UnleashSean]

After that performance Russell may be worried about being shown the door at seasons end

[JWags85]

Well, the Cubs did open the season with the second-highest payroll in the majors, only a few million behind the Red Sox and actually ahead of the Yankees and Dodgers. And they since have committed big money to their injured closer.

So whether pitchers, position players or whatever, they have a lot of high-priced players. If you want to say their high-priced players aren't "talent," that's up to you.

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

I think it was more my frustration with how the season is playing out.  Javy, Bryant, Rizzo, Schwarber, Hendricks, Contreras.  A lot of the key guys that have fueled the success that people associate with the Cubs are all on reasonable deals.  The irony is they have this inflated huge payroll, and the ones fueling that aren't producing.  There is no denying their payroll is huge

[MUBurrow]

As we talk about the Red Sox and Cubs somewhat similar positions, I wonder if we'll ever see an amnesty provision floated for future baseball CBAs.  That was a big item for the NBA, where teams each had the ability to simply wipe away a bad contract from their cap hit.  Its popular for the PA because it wipes each team's worst contract off its books thereby ramping free agency back up for a few years. And its popular among ownership because it limits the damage of increasing payrolls to just one contract, as opposed to wholesale changes to cap, luxury tax, etc. Its also been floated at the 30,000 foot level for the NFL, particularly QBs, to combat the "sign the QB and be in salary cap hell or win with a QB on a rookie deal" conundrum.

As appealing as amnestying contracts is in the NBA and NFL, it would seem absolutely best suited for MLB pitchers. We can go round and round about position player spending, but ultimately Harper and Machado got theirs, as will Betts and any other position players with four + tools. The pitchers are who are getting killed by ownership treating the tax as a hard cap, and a big part of that is injury fears.  A structure that would allow each team to waive/amnesty one player every, idk, 3-5 years would really help counter the push against signing pitchers, and it might even have a slight competitive balance benefit to boot.

[MU82]

I think it was more my frustration with how the season is playing out.  Javy, Bryant, Rizzo, Schwarber, Hendricks, Contreras.  A lot of the key guys that have fueled the success that people associate with the Cubs are all on reasonable deals.  The irony is they have this inflated huge payroll, and the ones fueling that aren't producing.  There is no denying their payroll is huge

Understood. Thanks.

As we talk about the Red Sox and Cubs somewhat similar positions, I wonder if we'll ever see an amnesty provision floated for future baseball CBAs.  That was a big item for the NBA, where teams each had the ability to simply wipe away a bad contract from their cap hit.  Its popular for the PA because it wipes each team's worst contract off its books thereby ramping free agency back up for a few years. And its popular among ownership because it limits the damage of increasing payrolls to just one contract, as opposed to wholesale changes to cap, luxury tax, etc. Its also been floated at the 30,000 foot level for the NFL, particularly QBs, to combat the "sign the QB and be in salary cap hell or win with a QB on a rookie deal" conundrum.

As appealing as amnestying contracts is in the NBA and NFL, it would seem absolutely best suited for MLB pitchers. We can go round and round about position player spending, but ultimately Harper and Machado got theirs, as will Betts and any other position players with four + tools. The pitchers are who are getting killed by ownership treating the tax as a hard cap, and a big part of that is injury fears.  A structure that would allow each team to waive/amnesty one player every, idk, 3-5 years would really help counter the push against signing pitchers, and it might even have a slight competitive balance benefit to boot.

So, MUB, the idea is that this amnesty would help teams stay under the luxury-tax threshold?

[buckchuckler]

Wasn't the amnesty deal in the NBA a one time thing as they transitioned to a new CBA structure?

[Spotcheck Billy]

There was a round table discussion over the weekend on ESPN about NOT even including QB salaries in the NFL salary cap.

[MUBurrow]

Wasn't the amnesty deal in the NBA a one time thing as they transitioned to a new CBA structure?

I believe that's right. I think each team had like 3 years to use it or lose it once the most recent CBA was signed. And I might be wrong on this, but I think all amnestied contracts had to be in force as of the date of the CBA.  So you couldn't sign a reckless deal after the CBA knowing you had an ace up your sleeve.

[MUBurrow]

So, MUB, the idea is that this amnesty would help teams stay under the luxury-tax threshold?

That's right. I'm sure there are a bunch of ways to write it, but in my mind once every 5 years you would be able to waive a player and his salary would no longer count in your luxury tax number.  The team would still be obligated to pay him, but the AAV of the contract would be nonexistent from a tax calculation standpoint.

[SaveOD238]

Understood. Thanks.

So, MUB, the idea is that this amnesty would help teams stay under the luxury-tax threshold?

So it would help the four or five teams that hit the luxury tax threshold?  Great.  Let's make it even easier for the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Astros, and Cubs while doing nothing for the mid-to-small market teams.

[MU82]

That's right. I'm sure there are a bunch of ways to write it, but in my mind once every 5 years you would be able to waive a player and his salary would no longer count in your luxury tax number.  The team would still be obligated to pay him, but the AAV of the contract would be nonexistent from a tax calculation standpoint.

Understood.

Not sure it's necessary for the good of the game, but it's an interesting idea.

[TallTitan34]

So it would help the four or five teams that hit the luxury tax threshold?  Great.  Let's make it even easier for the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Astros, and Cubs while doing nothing for the mid-to-small market teams.

Every team in MLB can afford to reach the luxury tax.  Their owners just chose not to.

If anything the luxury tax threshold hurts the big teams who have the resources to surpass it.

[Benny B]

Every team in MLB can afford to reach the luxury tax.  Their owners just chose not to.

That's kind of like saying, "Every Scooper can afford to buy a Lamborghini.  Everyone (except Rocky) just choses not to."

IOW, to say that every team can hit the luxury tax is way outside the venn overlap between 'possible' and 'reasonable.'

[TallTitan34]

That's kind of like saying, "Every Scooper can afford to buy a Lamborghini.  Everyone (except Rocky) just choses not to."

IOW, to say that every team can hit the luxury tax is way outside the venn overlap between 'possible' and 'reasonable.'

Alright maybe reaching the luxury tax was an exaggeration but every team can afford to spend a lot more than they do.

[MUBurrow]

That's kind of like saying, "Every Scooper can afford to buy a Lamborghini.  Everyone (except Rocky) just choses not to."

IOW, to say that every team can hit the luxury tax is way outside the venn overlap between 'possible' and 'reasonable.'

I agree that every team is a stretch, but in 2018, only two teams in the lower 1/2 of MLB revenues spent more than one-half of total revenues on luxury tax payroll, and that was the Reds (who traded to take on a ton of salary) and the Brewers who qualify by $1M.  You may be right that a bunch of teams couldn't hit the $206M payroll number, but you could multiply the payrolls of the bottom half of baseball by 1.5 and the owners of those teams would be fine. Only exceptions would be the Rays (worst revenue generating setup in baseball), Marlins (that undercapitalized group should never have been allowed to buy in the first place) and the A's (second worst revenue generating setup in baseball).

[CreightonWarrior]

Yelich out for the year. What a punch in the gut.

[TallTitan34]

Yelich out for the year. What a punch in the gut.

Fractured knee cap.

[JWags85]

No Baez and no Yelich for the stretch run is cruel for baseball fans. But Yelich's relative impact is obviously far greater and more profound.

[wadesworld]

Would've been the first outfielder since Barry Bonds to win back to back MVPs. Brutal.

Open up the checkbook Mark. Bring back Yas and Moose and run the offense back with a full year of Keston instead of continuing to trot Shaw out there.

Then go out and bring Wade Miley back and add a bullpen arm or two.

[TallTitan34]

Could have been the first member of the 50-30 club.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

He was having a season for the ages. What a brutal way for it to end.

[Cheeks]

Would've been the first outfielder since Barry Bonds to win back to back MVPs. Brutal.

Open up the checkbook Mark. Bring back Yas and Moose and run the offense back with a full year of Keston instead of continuing to trot Shaw out there.

Then go out and bring Wade Miley back and add a bullpen arm or two.

Trout was robbed, or he would have accomplished that already