Options
Should the Red Sox have given Bregman what he wanted to get him to sign?
tommyrusty7
Posts: 2,293 ✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I think they made the right decision as 5 years and a no trade clause was just too long! Ido understand his wanting to stay with one team as he has young children and it is hard on them to keep moving and starting over in a new city.
1
Comments
I am just fine with them letting Bregman go for that contract.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Agree with Craig, I'm. Glad they didn't spend that money on him
I want them to spend but for me I don't think he was worth all that especially due to his age
With what they spent for Suarez yes they should have added the 10 mil they were short on the Bregman offer and given him the money instead.
Maybe it wouldnt work out but Ill take my chances with a start 3rd basemen over a 30 year old pitcher thats never thrown a 160 innings in his career
Fire AJ Preller
Red Sox settle for Kiner-Falefa instead of Bregman. He is a decent 3rd baseman but does not hit . Looks like a filler for the next year with the strike looming. WE shall see shortly!
Hes terrible and might as well just call up a prospect. Agreed that the lockout is extremely likely to happen
Fire AJ Preller
I also think the 2027 lockout is going to happen
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Where do you guys stand on the debate about caps and floors? I dislike that MLB has owners who need to have a floor enforced to maintain a competitive product. I would usually be opposed to a floor or a cap. I think that a better approach would be to set the payroll expectations at a percentage of revenue, but that's also too easily manipulated. Now I remember why I don't think about this stuff.
Im completely against a cap and I hate revenue sharing/ where owners get punished for trying to win and cheap owners get money for being cheap. If we have to have revenue sharing though there should be a floor to be eligible and that money should have to go towards players on the payroll and not to another mansion for the owners. Revenue goes up when theres a good product on the field
With all the TV deals and everything else revenue increases every year for the league and a cap would just mean owners get more and more of it as time goes on
Fire AJ Preller
I'm against revenue sharing as well but I do think there should be a cap
Big market teams shouldn't be able to build super teams just because they are LA, NY, Boston ect
If owners want to cry poor and don't want to spend them it's on them, none of these owners are going broke
Shut this puppy down is the battle cry. Everybody involved wants to be the rich guy on the planet. The greedy owners who have screwed everybody on their way up and the greedy players that want to be as rich as the owners. Just how much money do you have to have to lead a happy life?
Finally someone who really GETS what Marx was saying! Thanks Tommy.
I am all for floors and i think caps can at least help to level the field. I do not like revenue sharing
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Even if you cap the players ability to earn tickets/concessions.parking/merch/revenue etc will continue to increase in price which just means the owners make more money. As a singular league only the NFL makes more money per year than MLB.
Theres really not any small market teams, theyre all in the biggest cities in the country. If a team has a small market its just because theyve sucked so long and the owner has been so bad fans have given up on them.
Thew Dodgers are going to have some issues in a few years. They have over a billion dollars of deferred money which is why they were able to make that roster. Betts has over 100 million deferred, Freman have almost 60 million deferred, and Othani has 680 million deferred just to name a few. Yamamoto is their only big contract without significant deferrals. Every team can kick the can down the road like that if they wanted too. Super teams also dont mean as much in MLB as they do in football
Fire AJ Preller