For the next time someone cries poverty on behalf of our billionaires

Status
Not open for further replies.

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
12,904
As I’ve addressed several times do you disagree with the top-5 and bottom-5 teams by revenue? If not, the overarching point holds.

I’ve yet to argue we should spend for the sake of spending but please keep putting words in my mouth.
So you supplemented bad data and analysis with a "feels like" index, so now it's all good?
 

johnlos

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2014
361
I did answer your question and your response is exactly what I was talking about. It's not as black and white as you are projecting it to be.
ok, well clearly my point of view is if a good crop of players is available that address team needs while our cheap position player window opens, I expect ownership to pony up. Sorry that’s such a hot take everyone!
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
ok, well clearly my point of view is if a good crop of players is available that address team needs while our cheap position player window opens, I expect ownership to pony up. Sorry that’s such a hot take everyone!
But it hasn't been clear. Can you not see the difference in this statement where you use the phrase "pony up" and what's said in the posts below?
Maybe "cry poverty" is the wrong term but people defend the owners all the time in here even though they seem checked out as they've moved on to soccer and racing. My stance all along is that the Red Sox are a top-5 fanbase and that comes out of the (excellent) fanbase's pockets so I expect them to have a top-5 salary.

I find it harder to wrap my head around the people that think we should be the Rays. We don't have to be. I'm not saying we need to be a top-5 spending team by tomorrow but we should expect to be going forward based on our revenue. It's not like the Rangers were the smartest-spending team and look where it got them in 2023.
Do you disagree that in the near future—when the window is likely open for World Series contention—that we should be a top-5 payroll?
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
12,904
ok, well clearly my point of view is if a good crop of players is available that address team needs while our cheap position player window opens, I expect ownership to pony up. Sorry that’s such a hot take everyone!
That seems to contradict your first post that stated:

I think they're a reasonable proxy for the commitment level of ownership to winning
Nothing about "boy I hope they spend more when tactically prudent" or whatever you're tracking to back to now. That post was clearly stating that every teams place in this nonsense ranking was a measurement of how much the owners were committed to winning.

And are "sniff tests" better calibrated than "feels like" indexes? Because they are both just hand-waving distractions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.