A professional organization gets that kind of smart deal done

 

Exactly Balta.

Not at all. Get rid of the dead weight, Rios, Dunn, and Ramirez, and the payroll is ~40M.

The problem is with the way the FA market is now, you'll just end up with more guys with contracts like we currently have.

Bernsrein mentioning the Sox and salary cap threshold shows he has absolutely no idea what he is writing about. He thinks it is the NBA.

Interestingly enough, he has corrected this and changed it to luxury tax threshold, albeit still doesn't change the fact that it is a ridiculous point to make.

The problem is with the way the FA market is now, you'll just end up with more guys with contracts like we currently have.

 

The problem is finding guys with bad contracts who have trade value. If the Sox were to do something like this, I'd limit it to 2 years and $60M.

Well that's a sadly insane suggestion.

That's a good way to put it.

The problem is finding guys with bad contracts who have trade value. If the Sox were to do something like this, I'd limit it to 2 years and $60M.

So smart organizations eat $60 million for a teams#5 prospect. Using one of your lines.......rotflmao

So smart organizations eat $60 million for a teams#5 prospect. Using one of your lines.......rotflmao

 

1. They probably would not do it for just #5 prospect.

2. If there is a better use of $60M over the next couple of years in a rebuilding you tell me. Would you rather have a 30-something free agent locked up through '17 for that amount?

1. They probably would not do it for just #5 prospect.

2. If there is a better use of $60M over the next couple of years in a rebuilding you tell me. Would you rather have a 30-something free agent locked up through '17 for that amount?

Yes. I would much rather have Brian McCann for that amount, as would anyone.

Kudos to soxtalk for pulling out the bizarre "eat a contract and i'll give you prospects" angle. I didn't really catch that's what he was saying when i first read it.

 

That is much more of a basketball thing, and honestly...not even there.

Kudos to soxtalk for pulling out the bizarre "eat a contract and i'll give you prospects" angle. I didn't really catch that's what he was saying when i first read it.

 

That is much more of a basketball thing, and honestly...not even there.

 

The only close manifestation of that I have seen is if you take our superstar player, you have to also take the bad contract. I don't think I ever remember bad contract + top prospect for nothing being done.

The only close manifestation of that I have seen is if you take our superstar player, you have to also take the bad contract. I don't think I ever remember bad contract + top prospect for nothing being done.

 

Yeah, exactly. If you are gonna take a top player we have to get down to 0 on our salary.

In the NBA more often a team will exchange bad contracts (like the Bulls sending Ben Wallace to the Cavs and taking Larry Hughes or the Raptors trying to trade Bargnani to the Bulls for Boozer. But I can't think of an example like what Bernstein is talking about here. Bulls will trade, say, Jimmy Butler but you've got to take Deng?

In the NBA more often a team will exchange bad contracts (like the Bulls sending Ben Wallace to the Cavs and taking Larry Hughes or the Raptors trying to trade Bargnani to the Bulls for Boozer. But I can't think of an example like what Bernstein is talking about here. Bulls will trade, say, Jimmy Butler but you've got to take Deng?

Teams have sent draft picks to teams for picking up cash in the NBA to get them under the salary cap and/or luxury tax. The Bulls sent a draft pick to Atlanta with Hinrich several years ago? The luxury tax in baseball affects very few teams. Its not like the NBA where almost every team is at the salary cap and several are paying luxury tax.

 

But it hasn't happened in MLB, and with the new TV money seems very unlikely to start any time soon.

Teams have sent draft picks to teams for picking up cash in the NBA to get them under the salary cap and/or luxury tax. The Bulls sent a draft pick to Atlanta with Hinrich several years ago? The luxury tax in baseball affects very few teams. Its not like the NBA where almost every team is at the salary cap and several are paying luxury tax.

 

But it hasn't happened in MLB, and with the new TV money seems very unlikely to start any time soon.

To Washington who traded him to ATL mid-season. Yeah that's a good example. That was a dice-roll and I just wish hindsight could be applied there.

How bad and expensive does a player have to be that a team will just give you a top prospect to take him off their hands? It really is unrealistic the way Bernstein describes it. Marty's scenerio makes more sense, but there is no way the Sox are going to eat $20 million to $150 million just for another team's #5 prospect, nor should they.

 

The way he was talking about it on the radio the other day was similar to the discussion that was had here when there was talk of Peavy going to Arizona with Jason Kubel being a bad contract coming the other way. It didn't sound like he was talking about trading for a Cliff Lee type or anything. More of a case where a guy has 1 yr left on his deal at a higher dollar amount. So more like the Sox trade DeAza or someone and agreeing to take back a high priced contract and hopefully getting a higher prospect in return.

 

Much like how people have said if the Sox gave more money to Boston they could've gotten a higher prospect back.

 

I think the way I described it is closer to what he meant then a big name, big money deal.

Teams have sent draft picks to teams for picking up cash in the NBA to get them under the salary cap and/or luxury tax. The Bulls sent a draft pick to Atlanta with Hinrich several years ago? The luxury tax in baseball affects very few teams. Its not like the NBA where almost every team is at the salary cap and several are paying luxury tax.

 

But it hasn't happened in MLB, and with the new TV money seems very unlikely to start any time soon.

 

Look at it this way. The Sox are offering any team in MLB a (for the sake of argument) $60M discount over the next 2 years on any player they acquire if they get the right prospects in return.

Why don't they just literally buy the prospects then? 30 mill cash for X

Why don't they just literally buy the prospects then? 30 mill cash for X

Then you run into the other problem...MLB literally wouldn't allow this. Trades involving money moving around have to be approved by the commish's office and whatever rules they follow it seems like they make sure it's an actual trade with people being moved, not just money.

Lame.

Then you run into the other problem...MLB literally wouldn't allow this. Trades involving money moving around have to be approved by the commish's office and whatever rules they follow it seems like they make sure it's an actual trade with people being moved, not just money.

 

It is strange that they would allow slot money to be traded for the purpose of acquiring better international prospects (like the Cubs did to land all of those top prospects) but they wont allow money to change hand between teams in order to acquire better prospects from minor leagues

Look at it this way. The Sox are offering any team in MLB a (for the sake of argument) $60M discount over the next 2 years on any player they acquire if they get the right prospects in return.

You'd have to get a team's top 4 to 5 prospects for this to even make an ounce of sense. Otherwise, any potential surplus value from the prospects would be more than offset by the $60M you paid to acquire them.

 

Since that's never going to happen, this whole conversation is beyond pointless.

It is strange that they would allow slot money to be traded for the purpose of acquiring better international prospects (like the Cubs did to land all of those top prospects) but they wont allow money to change hand between teams in order to acquire better prospects from minor leagues

You can certainly buy players at some level...but I think what MLB is really trying to avoid is "The Yankees sent the Marlins $100 million for Jose Fernandez", almost entirely on competitive balance grounds.

 

You know darn well both teams would do that if it were legal. And that'd be disturbingly close to what is being advocated here, picking up someone's contract almost entirely in exchange for young talent.

You can certainly buy players at some level...but I think what MLB is really trying to avoid is "The Yankees sent the Marlins $100 million for Jose Fernandez", almost entirely on competitive balance grounds.

 

You know darn well both teams would do that if it were legal.

The problem isn't competitive balance, it's that organizations like the Marlins exist who care more about the bottom line than winning.

The problem isn't competitive balance, it's that organizations like the Marlins exist who care more about the bottom line than winning.

And so MLB has to do their best to create a situation where those organizations can improve their bottom line by winning, even if it's only "winning every so often".

You'd have to get a team's top 4 to 5 prospects for this to even make an ounce of sense. Otherwise, any potential surplus value from the prospects would be more than offset by the $60M you paid to acquire them.

 

Since that's never going to happen, this whole conversation is beyond pointless.

 

Depends on what their payroll floor is. Why not make a short-term committment of $50-60M to add a few more prospects to the mix?