Mookie

A place specifically for trash talk, check your sensitivities at the door. If you're offended, leave this area.
Post Reply
User avatar
Yankees
Posts: 4249
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Fulshear, TX
Name: Brett Zalaski
Contact:

Mookie

Post by Yankees »

Are we going to talk about this or not? I'm asking for a, uh, friend...
User avatar
Astros
Posts: 2977
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:00 am
Location: PHX
Name: Ty Bradley

Re: Mookie

Post by Astros »

I don't understand getting as little in return as they got for him. I know adding Price was a salary dump but there had to have been something better out there not from LA
User avatar
Cardinals
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sat May 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Manch Vegas, CT
Name: John Paul Starkey

Re: Mookie

Post by Cardinals »

There's no way there was anything better out there. If there were, the Red Sox would've taken the better return. It seems only the Padres and Dodgers were in it at the end. If you think it's light, which I tend to think it is too, then shame on the other teams for not making a competitive offer. That's where the blame ought to go. Red Sox gave every signal that they were dealing him.
12, 14, 15, 17, 22
User avatar
Mets
Posts: 2267
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Name: John Anderson
Contact:

Re: Mookie

Post by Mets »

It's all about the money. Once LAD said they would take Price back all other teams offers took a backseat regardless of talent return.
2008-2023 Mets: 1,054-1,223...463%
2006-2008 Rockies: 242-244...498%

IBC Total: 1,296-1,467...469%
2022: lost WC
2023: lost WC
User avatar
Cardinals
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sat May 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Manch Vegas, CT
Name: John Paul Starkey

Re: Mookie

Post by Cardinals »

Yeah, the $90M they shed had to easily outweigh the supposed superior packages, which I'm not sure even existed.
12, 14, 15, 17, 22
User avatar
Cubs
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Chicago
Name: Pat Bishop

Re: Mookie

Post by Cubs »

In the next CBA, the union needs to fight hard against the luxury tax. It's not helping competitive balance and this trade doesn't happen if it doesn't exist. The Cubs might trade Bryant for the same reason when they should be looking at extending him, it's gonna be painful when they trade him for a couple of A ballers at midseason.
User avatar
Mets
Posts: 2267
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Name: John Anderson
Contact:

Re: Mookie

Post by Mets »

The luxury tax was the concession for not having a Salary Cap like every other league. Not saying it's the best solution - but unless every team has a standard cap/floor - I cannot see it going away completely.
2008-2023 Mets: 1,054-1,223...463%
2006-2008 Rockies: 242-244...498%

IBC Total: 1,296-1,467...469%
2022: lost WC
2023: lost WC
User avatar
Athletics
Posts: 1870
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:00 am
Location: San Diego, CA
Name: Stephen d'Esterhazy

Re: Mookie

Post by Athletics »

Boston didn't dump all the cash, but even eating what they did only put Price on par with what he would be worth in UFA which is like 3/45 or so.

And the luxury tax is only a problem because of how it builds up over multiple years, the major spenders wouldn't care if they had to shell out additional cash because they went over the limit for just one year, it is that if the next year they are over it they are taxed even more...yet there is revenue sharing.

Also, this luxury tax penalty messes with their international spending limits which now has a hard cap and there is no way they can exceed it.
"My shit doesn't work in the playoffs. My job is to get us to the playoffs. What happens after that is fucking luck."

LAA 11 - 15 331W - 479L
LAA 16 - 20 477W - 333L 17-20 ALW
OAK 21 - 22 214W - 110L 21-22 ALW
Post Reply

Return to “The Dumpster”