Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
aeichhor

Betts to Dodgers

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I just think when you aren't operating on a shoestring  budget, and you charge the customers what you charge, if you want them to stick with you during lean times, you better be ponying up when windows are open, and not satisfied with half assed, and a profit.

Dick: You would think so. But as I have posted in the past, Boston has a huge corporate season ticket base. Just about every major corporation over the 6 state region has a box or a block of seats. When I worked in New England, there were always corporate tickets offered for Red Sox games ( Yankees and a few inter-league games the exception). ABC Company is not going to drop their tickets because of Mookie.  So the effect will have to be felt in the average fan tickets and the TV viewer ratings. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SCCWS said:

Dick: You would think so. But as I have posted in the past, Boston has a huge corporate season ticket base. Just about every major corporation over the 6 state region has a box or a block of seats. When I worked in New England, there were always corporate tickets offered for Red Sox games ( Yankees and a few inter-league games the exception). ABC Company is not going to drop their tickets because of Mookie.  So the effect will have to be felt in the average fan tickets and the TV viewer ratings. 

 

Eventually there will be a breaking point. Obviously baseball isn't basketball. Losing one player isn't going to ruin your ticket base. But if it becomes a pattern and winning stops, and prices keep going up, what seems very unlikely is going to happen. I watched Hub Arkush on Kap's show last year. He has his dad's season tickets, tickets they have had for the Cubs since he was a little kid.  Obviously not a corporation, but last season he almost cancelled because the price is getting outrageous.  Maybe he breaks this year. Maybe not if he has Comcast and can't watch them on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bmags said:

If re-setting under the penalty was the main goal, it's not like there weren't other avenues to do it for the red sox. JBJ was not shed and he's making 11 million. Price had half his salary paid down to move, certainly could have moved with that and that gets you there. Sign kevin pillar for CF and you are a better team than they are now.

It was thinking they could build a better team with the return from mookie than with him. They aren't going to re-sign him.

The only way they got to trade 1/2 Price was w Mookie. According to media reports, they had been trying to trade just Price and there were no takers.  There were a lot of JBJ rumors last fall so my  guess is that they they would have moved JBJ if they could have traded Price. Supposedly Bett's agent wanted $420 over 12 and Boston declined.  I was surprised they also resigned JDM but I guess the timing was too early in Mookie negotiations. 

I am sure they knew the return on a Mookie rental would be minimal and I think it was.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, SCCWS said:

The only way they got to trade 1/2 Price was w Mookie. According to media reports, they had been trying to trade just Price and there were no takers.  There were a lot of JBJ rumors last fall so my  guess is that they they would have moved JBJ if they could have traded Price. Supposedly Bett's agent wanted $420 over 12 and Boston declined.  I was surprised they also resigned JDM but I guess the timing was too early in Mookie negotiations. 

I am sure they knew the return on a Mookie rental would be minimal and I think it was.  

I think the issue as always with these is when teams actually seek a return, which is why my post says what it says. If they were truly dumping the salary they could, but they felt they need a boost with cheap but productive talent, and trading Mookie was only chance to offload players + acquire talent.

Someone mentioned that they needed to dip under the tax to re-sign betts...as you mentioned that's not what this is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×