MLB 2020: We're Playing, but We Can't Agree on Anything

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,908
Waltham, MA
If we're going to start piling gimmicks on top of gimmicks, why not just say that the fielders in extra innings cannot wear gloves? That would really speed up the pace of the game, and it would return baseball to a simpler time!
Look, I'm not advocating the runner at all, but they're doing it whether we like it or not. People are saying the problem with this approach is slowing down the pitches due to holding the runner, so I suggested something which could fix it. I expect compensation from MLB when they adopt the idea in 2023 (JK - I hope they go back to normal).
 

Lose Remerswaal

Missing an “R”
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
If we're going to start piling gimmicks on top of gimmicks, why not just say that the fielders in extra innings cannot wear gloves? That would really speed up the pace of the game, and it would return baseball to a simpler time!
I think it would lengthen the games if you did that.

three ball walks and two strike strikeouts would be better
 

InsideTheParker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
28,752
Pioneer Valley
If Mookie were to opt out, would it have any effect on his contract situation? (This is almost certainly a stupid question, but indulge me, please, as I don't follow this stuff closely.)
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
6,936
It looks like we might save ~$6m, the prorated amount of our share of his check, if that is indeed how this works.
Do we have any idea if that counts towards the luxury tax threshhold or not? Like if it gives the sox an extra prorated 6m to trade for someone midseason and still reset the tax.
 

amfox1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2003
5,461
The back of your computer
Do we have any idea if that counts towards the luxury tax threshhold or not? Like if it gives the sox an extra prorated 6m to trade for someone midseason and still reset the tax.
Chris Cotillo@ChrisCotillo
46s

My understanding is that David Price's decision to opt out will save the Red Sox about $5.925 million in real money this season but it's not yet a sure bet that his $16 million CBT hit will come off the books.

Chris Cotillo@ChrisCotillo
20s

Any CBT rule changes come from both MLB and MLBPA. There are some specific details those sides are still negotiating for this unprecedented season. Currently unclear exactly how player opt-outs will impact CBT calculations.

Chris Cotillo@ChrisCotillo
46s

Red Sox are about $10M under $208M threshold now. If the $16M Price hit is forgiven, they're way under (by about $26M). Reasonable to think that difference could change the team's strategy in acquiring talent for 2020. But at this moment, too early to know if that'll happen.
 

Sox Puppet

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2016
383
Here's an honest question, and I really don't have a strong position on it one way or another:

Even if we have extra $ to spend for 2020, a chance to acquire some better talent, etc., is there even any point? This is starting to seem like a glorified spring training season anyway, and even if we were to win the WS in this modified format, it would carry a gigantic asterisk beside it forever.
 

Apisith

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2007
2,470
Bangkok
Here's an honest question, and I really don't have a strong position on it one way or another:

Even if we have extra $ to spend for 2020, a chance to acquire some better talent, etc., is there even any point? This is starting to seem like a glorified spring training season anyway, and even if we were to win the WS in this modified format, it would carry a gigantic asterisk beside it forever.
It would be great to use the spare money to acquire prospects and accelerate our mini-rebuild.
 

canderson

"Seer of Seers, Sage of Sages, Political Guru"
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
27,039
Harrisburg, Pa.
Here's an honest question, and I really don't have a strong position on it one way or another:

Even if we have extra $ to spend for 2020, a chance to acquire some better talent, etc., is there even any point? This is starting to seem like a glorified spring training season anyway, and even if we were to win the WS in this modified format, it would carry a gigantic asterisk beside it forever.
I wouldn’t spend a dime extra on a season that won’t actually happen. I see no possible way this season can occur.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,595
Portsmouth, NH
It would be great to use the spare money to acquire prospects and accelerate our mini-rebuild.
If someone wants to make a straight salary dump - Will Meyers? - and tack on some prospects, absolutely. I'm not sure how likely that is though.

My question is how many games do they have to play to trigger the CBT reset? I'm in the camp that thinks there's no way they even finish 60 games, let alone playoffs. Do they need to play all 60 for that or is there some kind of minimum? Is it as simple as "one"?
 

McBride11

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
15,710
Charleston, SC
When I first read @NJ_Sox_Fan comment about Trout being outside, exercising and wearing an N95 and calling it ridiculous - I thought that meant ridiculously impressive to be able to exercise with one of those suckers on. Esp in hot CA weather. At least that was how I felt and then was like damn, that's why he may be the greatest MLB player ever.

Then it totally took a turn for the dark.

Also, with Price opting out, is that the nail in the coffin for the debate of opt outs helping teams vs players? OR does it add a new element and we can revive the thread?!
 

SoxInTheMist

lurker
Jul 18, 2005
186
Woodinville, WA
This entire "season" is just going to be a cluster - if it even starts and finishes at all. It's basically a glorified barn-storming baseball exhibition for a few months. I'd be surprised if any of the big 4 sports get a season in this year. I'm just imagining the chaos that will ensue when one of these leagues manages to start back up and a team gets crushed by the virus. Are they going to forfeit the rest of the season? Remember how quickly the flu moved through locker rooms in multiple sports last year. That only took players down for a few days.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
299
When I first read @NJ_Sox_Fan comment about Trout being outside, exercising and wearing an N95 and calling it ridiculous - I thought that meant ridiculously impressive to be able to exercise with one of those suckers on. Esp in hot CA weather. At least that was how I felt and then was like damn, that's why he may be the greatest MLB player ever.

Then it totally took a turn for the dark.

Also, with Price opting out, is that the nail in the coffin for the debate of opt outs helping teams vs players? OR does it add a new element and we can revive the thread?!
I dont think he is "opting-out" of his contract, which is the prevailing use, prior to Covid, of the opt-out part of contracts. He is just not going to play this season, and wont be paid Totally different concepts.

On the other hand, the nail in the coffin of "opt-outs help the team" had already been put in by the fact that, except in the situation of a player vastly overestimating his worth, they just don't, due to logic.
 

McBride11

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
15,710
Charleston, SC
I dont think he is "opting-out" of his contract, which is the prevailing use, prior to Covid, of the opt-out part of contracts. He is just not going to play this season, and wont be paid Totally different concepts.

On the other hand, the nail in the coffin of "opt-outs help the team" had already been put in by the fact that, except in the situation of a player vastly overestimating his worth, they just don't, due to logic.
Sorry. Completely tongue in cheek given the contentious and exciting opt out thread
 

grimshaw

the new rudy
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
3,501
Portland
Here's an honest question, and I really don't have a strong position on it one way or another:

Even if we have extra $ to spend for 2020, a chance to acquire some better talent, etc., is there even any point? This is starting to seem like a glorified spring training season anyway, and even if we were to win the WS in this modified format, it would carry a gigantic asterisk beside it forever.
Only for a long term extension for Devers (or E-Rod) who may be willing to jump at the chance.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
10,244
Pedro pitched for Boston from 1998-2004 (7 years). Here's their records over those 7 years:

1998: 92-70, lost in ALDS to Cleveland (and they weren't getting past NY that year no matter what)
1999: 94-68, lost in ALCS to New York
2000: 85-77, 2.5 games back, missed playoffs
2001: 82-79, 13.5 games back, missed playoffs
2002: 93-69, 10.5 games back, missed playoffs
2003: 95-67, lost in ALCS to New York
2004: 98-64, won World Series

TOTAL: 639-494 (.564, for an average of 91 wins a year), 4 trips to the playoffs, 3 trips to the ALCS, 1 WS win

The first four of those years they went up against the juggernaut Yankee dynasty that averaged 99 wins a season over those four years and went to the WS all four of those seasons. For the 7-year period, NY averaged 100 wins a year.

I think the one year that Boston really kind of blew it was in 2000, when NY only won 87 games and Boston won 85. But even then, it's deceiving, as NY went on total cruise control to end the year and lost 7 straight, which makes their final record worse than that team actually was. But still, that was by far the worst NY team of the bunch and Boston absolutely should have had a better showing there. That year's rotation was godawful after Pedro:

Schourek (3-10, 5.11 era)
Fassero (8-8, 4.78 era)
Ramon M (10-8, 6.13 era)
Arrojo (5-2, 5.05 era)

Even Wake (17 starts) was bad that year: 6-10, 5.48 era. Just a disaster.

But in the Pedro years the Red Sox were never BAD. In the Felix years, Seattle has had some abjectly awful teams. He's pitched for them from 2005-2019. In that span, they've only had a winning record 5 times. They've never won more than 89 games. Never finished in first and only finished in 2nd in their division twice. Never made the playoffs - not once in all of Felix' career. Averaged 76 wins a season. Five times won fewer than 70 games. Went 61-101 twice. Yikes.

Completely apples and oranges comparison to what the Sox did with Pedro.

Put it this way: If, when Boston traded for Pedro, you as a Boston fan would be told that in Pedro's time:

- Boston would average 91 wins a year and never have a losing record,
- They'd make the playoffs 4 of the 7 years,
- They'd make it to the ALCS 3 of the 7 years,
- They'd win the World Series once, beating the Yankees in epic fashion along the way....

There's not a single Red Sox fan on planet earth that wouldn't have immediately signed up for that.

Don't forget, not counting the strike year (in which Boston went 54-61, so they were bad then too), they averaged just 80 wins a season from 1992-1997, and only made the playoffs once, getting swept by Cleveland in the divisional round. They weren't good. Pedro came, and they became really good.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,632
Hingham, MA
Pedro pitched for Boston from 1998-2004 (7 years). Here's their records over those 7 years:

1998: 92-70, lost in ALDS to Cleveland (and they weren't getting past NY that year no matter what)
1999: 94-68, lost in ALCS to New York
2000: 85-77, 2.5 games back, missed playoffs
2001: 82-79, 13.5 games back, missed playoffs
2002: 93-69, 10.5 games back, missed playoffs
2003: 95-67, lost in ALCS to New York
2004: 98-64, won World Series

TOTAL: 639-494 (.564, for an average of 91 wins a year), 4 trips to the playoffs, 3 trips to the ALCS, 1 WS win

The first four of those years they went up against the juggernaut Yankee dynasty that averaged 99 wins a season over those four years and went to the WS all four of those seasons. For the 7-year period, NY averaged 100 wins a year.

I think the one year that Boston really kind of blew it was in 2000, when NY only won 87 games and Boston won 85. But even then, it's deceiving, as NY went on total cruise control to end the year and lost 7 straight, which makes their final record worse than that team actually was. But still, that was by far the worst NY team of the bunch and Boston absolutely should have had a better showing there. That year's rotation was godawful after Pedro:

Schourek (3-10, 5.11 era)
Fassero (8-8, 4.78 era)
Ramon M (10-8, 6.13 era)
Arrojo (5-2, 5.05 era)

Even Wake (17 starts) was bad that year: 6-10, 5.48 era. Just a disaster.

But in the Pedro years the Red Sox were never BAD. In the Felix years, Seattle has had some abjectly awful teams. He's pitched for them from 2005-2019. In that span, they've only had a winning record 5 times. They've never won more than 89 games. Never finished in first and only finished in 2nd in their division twice. Never made the playoffs - not once in all of Felix' career. Averaged 76 wins a season. Five times won fewer than 70 games. Went 61-101 twice. Yikes.

Completely apples and oranges comparison to what the Sox did with Pedro.

Put it this way: If, when Boston traded for Pedro, you as a Boston fan would be told that in Pedro's time:

- Boston would average 91 wins a year and never have a losing record,
- They'd make the playoffs 4 of the 7 years,
- They'd make it to the ALCS 3 of the 7 years,
- They'd win the World Series once, beating the Yankees in epic fashion along the way....

There's not a single Red Sox fan on planet earth that wouldn't have immediately signed up for that.

Don't forget, not counting the strike year (in which Boston went 54-61, so they were bad then too), they averaged just 80 wins a season from 1992-1997, and only made the playoffs once, getting swept by Cleveland in the divisional round. They weren't good. Pedro came, and they became really good.
The Sox were 136-65 in games Pedro started from 1998-2004, which puts them at 503-429 in games he didn't pitch (.540, or a ~87 win team). That's actually better than I thought it would be to be honest.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,861
Maine
Pedro pitched for Boston from 1998-2004 (7 years). Here's their records over those 7 years:

1998: 92-70, lost in ALDS to Cleveland (and they weren't getting past NY that year no matter what)
1999: 94-68, lost in ALCS to New York
2000: 85-77, 2.5 games back, missed playoffs
2001: 82-79, 13.5 games back, missed playoffs
2002: 93-69, 10.5 games back, missed playoffs
2003: 95-67, lost in ALCS to New York
2004: 98-64, won World Series

TOTAL: 639-494 (.564, for an average of 91 wins a year), 4 trips to the playoffs, 3 trips to the ALCS, 1 WS win

The first four of those years they went up against the juggernaut Yankee dynasty that averaged 99 wins a season over those four years and went to the WS all four of those seasons. For the 7-year period, NY averaged 100 wins a year.

I think the one year that Boston really kind of blew it was in 2000, when NY only won 87 games and Boston won 85. But even then, it's deceiving, as NY went on total cruise control to end the year and lost 7 straight, which makes their final record worse than that team actually was. But still, that was by far the worst NY team of the bunch and Boston absolutely should have had a better showing there. That year's rotation was godawful after Pedro:

Schourek (3-10, 5.11 era)
Fassero (8-8, 4.78 era)
Ramon M (10-8, 6.13 era)
Arrojo (5-2, 5.05 era)

Even Wake (17 starts) was bad that year: 6-10, 5.48 era. Just a disaster.

But in the Pedro years the Red Sox were never BAD. In the Felix years, Seattle has had some abjectly awful teams. He's pitched for them from 2005-2019. In that span, they've only had a winning record 5 times. They've never won more than 89 games. Never finished in first and only finished in 2nd in their division twice. Never made the playoffs - not once in all of Felix' career. Averaged 76 wins a season. Five times won fewer than 70 games. Went 61-101 twice. Yikes.

Completely apples and oranges comparison to what the Sox did with Pedro.

Put it this way: If, when Boston traded for Pedro, you as a Boston fan would be told that in Pedro's time:

- Boston would average 91 wins a year and never have a losing record,
- They'd make the playoffs 4 of the 7 years,
- They'd make it to the ALCS 3 of the 7 years,
- They'd win the World Series once, beating the Yankees in epic fashion along the way....

There's not a single Red Sox fan on planet earth that wouldn't have immediately signed up for that.

Don't forget, not counting the strike year (in which Boston went 54-61, so they were bad then too), they averaged just 80 wins a season from 1992-1997, and only made the playoffs once, getting swept by Cleveland in the divisional round. They weren't good. Pedro came, and they became really good.
This all shows that the Sox didn't truly waste Pedro's prime. However, there's no getting around the fact that the Harrington/Duquette portion of his tenure was marred by a failure to surround Pedro with better talent in the rotation. Those teams were often top heavy rosters backfilled with reclamation projects and middling at best prospects. It was essentially Pedro, Nomar, and the rest. While the team had some success and were also victims of the Yankees dominance during that period, the teams also left a lot to be desired. It didn't feel like they got the most out of Pedro's prime.

But yeah, compared to King Felix in Seattle, those Sox teams were a raucous success.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
10,244
This all shows that the Sox didn't truly waste Pedro's prime. However, there's no getting around the fact that the Harrington/Duquette portion of his tenure was marred by a failure to surround Pedro with better talent in the rotation. Those teams were often top heavy rosters backfilled with reclamation projects and middling at best prospects. It was essentially Pedro, Nomar, and the rest. While the team had some success and were also victims of the Yankees dominance during that period, the teams also left a lot to be desired. It didn't feel like they got the most out of Pedro's prime.

But yeah, compared to King Felix in Seattle, those Sox teams were a raucous success.
In the early Pedro years, they had Pedro, Nomar, and Mo as stars, with guys like Valentin, O'Leary (totally underrated player), and a young Varitek.

They lost Mo but added Nixon and a young Derek Lowe to the mix.

Even Carl Everett (2 seasons) was pretty good for Boston.

Then they brought in Manny, another superstar, and of course in 2001 when they only won 82 games, Pedro was hurt for much of that year.

Nixon and Varitek hit their primes, and they added Damon. Lowe had become a very good starter. And in 2003-2004, we know how good those teams were.

So they had some real stars during this time: Pedro, Mo, Nomar, Manny, Damon. They had a bunch of solid second-tier players: Valentin, O'Leary, Nixon, Lowe. They were really good for most of Pedro's time. The Yankees were just much better. But yes it seems like if they could only have added another stud to the rotation, that might have gotten them over the hump.

Well....along came Schilling in 2004 and......yep.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
52,019
Heh, plus NY lost Clemens, Pettitte and Wells in between 2003 and 2004, their #2 starter in 2004 was freaking Jon Lieber.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,861
Maine
In the early Pedro years, they had Pedro, Nomar, and Mo as stars, with guys like Valentin, O'Leary (totally underrated player), and a young Varitek.

They lost Mo but added Nixon and a young Derek Lowe to the mix.

Even Carl Everett (2 seasons) was pretty good for Boston.

Then they brought in Manny, another superstar, and of course in 2001 when they only won 82 games, Pedro was hurt for much of that year.

Nixon and Varitek hit their primes, and they added Damon. Lowe had become a very good starter. And in 2003-2004, we know how good those teams were.

So they had some real stars during this time: Pedro, Mo, Nomar, Manny, Damon. They had a bunch of solid second-tier players: Valentin, O'Leary, Nixon, Lowe. They were really good for most of Pedro's time. The Yankees were just much better. But yes it seems like if they could only have added another stud to the rotation, that might have gotten them over the hump.

Well....along came Schilling in 2004 and......yep.
You know what your list prior to 2003-2004 is missing though? Starting pitchers. I can acknowledge that the lineup wasn't Nomar and nobody else. They managed some solid run producing plugging in scrap-heap guys around the second-tier stars and Nomar. But until Lowe went to the rotation in 2002 (and Schilling in 2004), there was no one who you could look at and say "yeah, that's the guy we win Game 2 with". It was Pedro and a bunch of shit thrown at the wall in hopes it would stick...retreads, journeymen, and failed prospects.

From 1998-2001, the top 10 pitchers ranked by number of starts are as follows:
Pedro 109
Tim Wakefield 84
Bret Saberhagen 56
Brian Rose 38
Hideo Nomo 33
Ramon Martinez 31
Pete Schourek 29
Mark Portugal 27
Pat Rapp 26
Frank Castillo 26

Of those, the only one, aside from Pedro of course, had an ERA under 4 in all those starts: Saberhagen at 3.70. Mediocrities, has-beens and never-wases otherwise.

Look at the post-season results in those years. Five total playoff wins, and Pedro had three of them. In the other two, the offense scored 9 and 23 runs, rendering the starting pitcher moot. Curiously, in the 3 games Pedro won, they scored 11, 12, and 13 runs. Those teams succeeded only when they could bludgeon their opponent.

2003-2004, with Theo doing the roster construction, the team was loaded for bear. Prior to that, though, it was a bunch of bubblegum, chicken-wire and scotch tape. Easy to feel like Pedro was being wasted, even on a perennial second place team.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
10,244
Agreed they didn’t have good starting pitching aside from Pedro and an occasional good year from someone else.

But the team as a whole performed very well during Pedro’s tenure. That’s an objective reality. It wasn’t anything close to what Seattle has done in Felix’ time there.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,595
Portsmouth, NH
This all shows that the Sox didn't truly waste Pedro's prime. However, there's no getting around the fact that the Harrington/Duquette portion of his tenure was marred by a failure to surround Pedro with better talent in the rotation. Those teams were often top heavy rosters backfilled with reclamation projects and middling at best prospects. It was essentially Pedro, Nomar, and the rest. While the team had some success and were also victims of the Yankees dominance during that period, the teams also left a lot to be desired. It didn't feel like they got the most out of Pedro's prime.

But yeah, compared to King Felix in Seattle, those Sox teams were a raucous success.
How dare you besmirch the memory of Butch Huskey...?
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
13,705
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
Memory failed. I thought that Pedro basically carried a mediocre Red Sox team for much of his tenure. I could have looked it up.

In Felix’s case, the M’s played exactly one “meaningful” game on the last day of the season (had they won and Oakland lost, it would have put them in a tie for the second wildcard), and it became meaningless in about the sixth inning.

What a waste. I remember going down to Tacoma to watch him pitch when all of the buzz was rising about this phenom.

Of course, he’ll always have his perfect game at home and the grand slam he hit in Shea. And he did bank some money.