Wade Miley: Not bad actually

[Bellhorn04]

Acquisition of a big star can only be evaluated in hindsight, but failed acquisitions like Hanley, Pablo, and Porcello are given a pass by you if you agreed with the strategy when the deals were made? Am I getting you wrong on this?

 

i never said that the two were mutually exclusive. In fact, I acknowledged that there are different strokes for different folks. Speaking only for myself, I never worry about billionaire's money. But that is just me. I figure that they know how to look after their money without my help or advice.

 

I don't look at it as worrying about 'billionaire's money'. I look at it as 'the team's money'. John Henry does not dip into his own pocket to pay for the players' salaries. The team has a big pot of revenue that it derives from the fans. It spends a carefully budgeted amount of that money on players. It will not go very far above that budget - because Henry and the other owners do not want to lose money.

 

It's almost like a fantasy baseball team where you have X number of dollars to spend and no more, so the money has to be spent wisely.

[a700hitter]

I don't look at it as worrying about 'billionaire's money'. I look at it as 'the team's money'. John Henry does not dip into his own pocket to pay for the players' salaries. The team has a big pot of revenue that it derives from the fans. It spends a carefully budgeted amount of that money on players. It will not go very far above that budget - because Henry and the other owners do not want to lose money.

 

It's almost like a fantasy baseball team where you have X number of dollars to spend and no more, so the money has to be spent wisely.

Of course Henry and the other owners have a target return on their investment. They intend to make a profit and project the size of their profit each year. That profit is their money.

[Bellhorn04]

Of course Henry and the other owners have a target return on their investment. They intend to make a profit and project the size of their profit each year. That profit is their money.

 

And, their payroll budget has been very consistently at or around the luxury tax threshold. The numbers are no mystery.

[a700hitter]

And, their payroll budget has been very consistently at or around the luxury tax threshold. The numbers are no mystery.

Their payrolls are published and available, but their profit numbers are not as readily available. They have more flexibility than other teams when it comes to payroll as they are operating at a very nice profit -- again were are talking about Billionaire's money. You are viewing the payroll budget in a vacuum. It doesn't exist as a standalone entity. Profit is the true indicator of financial strength, and MLB has always been less than transparent about that..

[Bellhorn04]

Their payrolls are published and available, but their profit numbers are not as readily available. They have more flexibility than other teams when it comes to payroll as they are operating at a very nice profit -- again were are talking about Billionaire's money. You are viewing the payroll budget in a vacuum. It doesn't exist as a standalone entity. Profit is the true indicator of financial strength, and MLB has always been less than transparent about that..

 

What I'm saying is that the Sox have made it clear, through the actual historical data, that their payroll budget matches up with the luxury tax threshold.

[a700hitter]

What I'm saying is that the Sox have made it clear, through the actual historical data, that their payroll budget matches up with the luxury tax threshold.

Okay, so what is the point that you are making... that we know enough about the finances of the Boston Red Sox that we can make judgments about their financial health and that I should worry about these things? Edited October 19, 2015 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

Okay, so what is the point that you are making... that we know enough about the finances of the Boston Red Sox that we can make judgments about their financial health and that I should worry about these things?

 

My point is pretty simple. We know how much they want to spend on payroll. We know how big the pie is.

 

Which of course is tied into the question of whether we as fans should 'worry' or 'shudder' about such things as signing Price for $30 million a year. IMHO, it has nothing to do with worrying about the billionaire's money. The billionaire will be fine. He will not be reaching into his pocket to pay a nickel. He has an asset that keeps appreciating in value, and that generates more than enough revenue to cover the expenses.

 

Any worry is only about how the $30 million impacts the strength of the team.

[a700hitter]

My point is pretty simple. We know how much they want to spend on payroll. We know how big the pie is.

 

Which of course is tied into the question of whether we as fans should 'worry' or 'shudder' about such things as signing Price for $30 million a year. IMHO, it has nothing to do with worrying about the billionaire's money. The billionaire will be fine. He will not be reaching into his pocket to pay a nickel. He has an asset that keeps appreciating in value, and that generates more than enough revenue to cover the expenses.

 

Any worry is only about how the $30 million impacts the strength of the team.

Budgets change over time. Over the course of a long term contract the payroll will increase. The trend is still upward. We are not privy to these trends. If you want to worry about it, have at it. I don't think you have enough facts to really know what is going on with the team financially and how that will play into their budget, but go ahead and worry if you don't have enough stress in your life. But you are worrying about billionaires' money. It isn't team money. They like to make big profits, and that can't happen by being a last place team year after year.

 

Edit: I'll shudder when the play on the field stinks. I shuddered every time a ball was hit to LF when Hanley was out there this season. Different strokes. I'll trust them on the money end. If you want to analyze their budget and shudder over it, that is your right.

Edited October 19, 2015 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

Budgets change over time. Over the course of a long term contract the payroll will increase. The trend is still upward. We are not privy to these trends. If you want to worry about it, have at it. I don't think you have enough facts to really know what is going on with the team financially and how that will play into their budget, but go ahead and worry if you don't have enough stress in your life. But you are worrying about billionaires' money. It isn't team money. They like to make big profits, and that can't happen by being a last place team year after year.

 

 

I'm not worried about anything here. I enjoy this stuff.

 

As far as facts go, the Red Sox payrolls for past years are facts. The luxury tax thresholds are facts. The extremely close relationship between the 2 is a fact.

 

I maintain that my point is a very simple one. You just don't seem to get it. No big deal.

[a700hitter]

I'm not worried about anything here. I enjoy this stuff.

 

As far as facts go, the Red Sox payrolls for past years are facts. The luxury tax thresholds are facts. The extremely close relationship between the 2 is a fact.

 

I maintain that my point is a very simple one. You just don't seem to get it. No big deal.

I am glad to hear that you don't worry about it. I get that there is a limited budget, but I don't stress too much that they will spend so irresponsibly that they will be financially strapped and handicap themselves. Their budget is plenty big to sign a high profile player or two. They have spent a s*** ton on s*** the last couple of years.

[Kimmi]

Unless the pitcher is in the final year before free agency or a team is looking to dump the salary of 30+ year old pitcher (e.g. Shields who is not a #1), I can't see many possibilities of getting a #1 pitcher without giving up a package that includes Betts, Bogaerts or Swihart in return. If DD can swing a deal without including one of them, I would be thrilled.

 

As for Donaldson, I disagree. IMO, Beane most got fleeced.

 

I read a comment today that it's not just the guys at BA and other prospect ranking sites who are high on the Sox farm system, but that other team's GMs gush when they talk about the Sox farm system. Apparently, there is a lot to be interested in beyond Betts, Bogaerts, and Swihart.

 

While I'm on the topic of our farm system, to think that the Sox have recently graduated the above three, along with ERod, JBJ, and Vazquez, and are still regarded as having a very deep farm says a lot about what a great job Cherington did with it.

 

As far as whether Beane was fleeced in the Donaldson trade or not, I'm not going to get into a debate about it. Either way, that trade makes my point that the Sox won't necessarily have to give up one of those three players to get back a #1 pitcher.

[Kimmi]

I guess that I just have a different perspective on it. I view the management of the Red Sox budget as an aspect of their job about which I have no knowledge or expertise so I don't concern myself with it. Clearly, it is a very important aspect of their job, and I just have to have faith that they are not putting themselves in a bad financial situation. I can judge talent on the field and I can evaluate whether it is a good or bad team on the field, so I limit my conversations and criticisms to what I see on the field. As critical as you think I am of the FO, in some ways I am more patient and cut them more slack than you do. I don't criticize them unless the product on the field is substandard. I don't criticize them for the future of their finances and the possible negative results of their overspending. It is your right (as you said) to do so, but I will trust them to take care of their money. I don't know enough about their balance sheet to offer an informed opinion. I do know enough to offer an opinion on the acquisitions of Hanley and Pablo regarding what they bring to the team on the field. At this point, the grade on them is a big "F" and can see it improving only to a "C".

 

I think you are way overanalyzing this and making a bigger deal out of it than it is. No one is losing sleep over the Red Sox' finances. However, we, as fans, do know that the Sox have a limit as to how much they will spend on payroll, and history has taught us how big contracts can come back to haunt the team.

 

If you don't see anything wrong with handing out huge contracts to players that you feel are worth it, then that's good for you.

 

But, should the product the FO puts on the field in 5 years be terrible because the Sox are dealing with the albatross contract of an underperforming player, then you really have no right to complain about the terrible product. You can say all you want that a team with the Sox' resources should be able to overcome this bad contract, but it is a fact that overcoming that dead money is not always possible when working on a limited budget.

[Kimmi]

I'm not worried about anything here. I enjoy this stuff.

 

As far as facts go, the Red Sox payrolls for past years are facts. The luxury tax thresholds are facts. The extremely close relationship between the 2 is a fact.

 

I maintain that my point is a very simple one. You just don't seem to get it. No big deal.

 

No worries Bellhorn. I get your point, and I'm pretty sure a700 gets it also.

 

As I've said before, he just likes to argue for the sake of arguing, which is fine by me.

[a700hitter]

I think you are way overanalyzing this and making a bigger deal out of it than it is. No one is losing sleep over the Red Sox' finances.

Oh, okay. My bad. I misunderstood "shuddering" as a bad thing.

 

 

But, should the product the FO puts on the field in 5 years be terrible because the Sox are dealing with the albatross contract of an underperforming player, then you really have no right to complain about the terrible product. You can say all you want that a team with the Sox' resources should be able to overcome this bad contract, but it is a fact that overcoming that dead money is not always possible when working on a limited budget.

The team has been terrible for the last 2 seasons, and they have spent a s*** ton of money in the process. I will not blame David Price for driving us into last place. If we should find ourselves in last place in a few year under DD, I am fairly certain that there will be many reasons for it other than David Price. Edited October 20, 2015 by a700hitter

[Spudboy]

I think you are way overanalyzing this and making a bigger deal out of it than it is. No one is losing sleep over the Red Sox' finances. However, we, as fans, do know that the Sox have a limit as to how much they will spend on payroll, and history has taught us how big contracts can come back to haunt the team.

 

If you don't see anything wrong with handing out huge contracts to players that you feel are worth it, then that's good for you.

 

But, should the product the FO puts on the field in 5 years be terrible because the Sox are dealing with the albatross contract of an underperforming player, then you really have no right to complain about the terrible product. You can say all you want that a team with the Sox' resources should be able to overcome this bad contract, but it is a fact that overcoming that dead money is not always possible when working on a limited budget.

 

What limited budget do you speak of? I still don't understand why you think the Sox would be strapped by a $30. contract that had become dead money. That would still leave about $140.-$150. mil to fill out a roster.

[mvp 78]

I'd rather pay an ace $30M, than have signed Pablo and Hanley, but we're stuck with at least one of them. I still think Pedroia's contract is too high, but with all of these young guys in the system you have the ability to overpay here and there and not be too cash strapped.

 

Has Buchholz's extension been signed? Trade Hanley and eat 10M per year. That's 23M savings that could go towards Price or someone else.

 

Honestly, I still think there is one more year to go before this team truly becomes a contender. I'm worried about a few sophmore slumps.

[mvp 78]

But that's just me being negative, not adding anything to the conversation and scaring people off the board. Sorry guys! Silly me!

[Bellhorn04]

What limited budget do you speak of? I still don't understand why you think the Sox would be strapped by a $30. contract that had become dead money. That would still leave about $140.-$150. mil to fill out a roster.

 

Strapped may not be the right word. They would be severely hampered though.

 

You've got 5 starting pitchers to pay, 3-4 good relievers, 9 position players. The numbers add up in a hurry.

[a700hitter]

Strapped may not be the right word. They would be severely hampered though.

 

You've got 5 starting pitchers to pay, 3-4 good relievers, 9 position players. The numbers add up in a hurry.

The budget is plenty big enough with lots of flexibility to free up money. Unless they signs 3 or 4 guys to long term bad contracts that all expire at the same time, there shouldn't be a budgetary problem. Other teams are consistently successsful with far less resources. The Red Sox problem is not and never has been money. Their challenge is talent evaluation and development, especially in the pitching department. The acquisitions of Pablo and Hanley have me shuddering. Combine that with the ridiculously over priced extension for Porcello and we have $260 million dedicated to terrible contracts. I didn't read many concerns about those contracts when they occurred. A quarter of a billion dollars set aside for a #4 starter with a 4+ career ERA an overweight third baseman with no power that can't hit lefties with an average glove and a broken down SS who is injury prone being moved to a new position. Those are the kinds of deals that strap payrolls and ruin seasons-- a lot of money for very little talent and ability.

 

Edit: Luckily the Red Sox payroll is large enough to absorb these types of sunk costs and still have plenty of flexibility. They may be forced to dump some of these contracts while eating a hefty portion of the money to free up additional payroll.

Edited October 20, 2015 by a700hitter

[Dojji]

Strapped may not be the right word. They would be severely hampered though.

 

You've got 5 starting pitchers to pay, 3-4 good relievers, 9 position players. The numbers add up in a hurry.

 

That's not even the right word since a lot of teams would be very grateful to hagve 140-150m for their budget. The real issue is that we can't use our financial advantage to separate ourselves from the pack if so much of it is locked into dead-money contracts.

[reYoukilis]

That's not even the right word since a lot of teams would be very grateful to hagve 140-150m for their budget. The real issue is that we can't use our financial advantage to separate ourselves from the pack if so much of it is locked into dead-money contracts.

That's the trap of being a team with lots of money. Look at the teams that are actually in the playoffs, who are the big spenders? None of them. They get a pitcher to finish out the season but that's it. We were on that path prior to the previous offseason.

[a700hitter]

That's the trap of being a team with lots of money. Look at the teams that are actually in the playoffs, who are the big spenders? None of them. They get a pitcher to finish out the season but that's it. We were on that path prior to the previous offseason.

The Dodger, Blue Jays and Rangers are top 10 payroll teams.

[cp176]

The budget is plenty big enough with lots of flexibility to free up money. Unless they signs 3 or 4 guys to long term bad contracts that all expire at the same time, there shouldn't be a budgetary problem. Other teams are consistently successsful with far less resources. The Red Sox problem is not and never has been money. Their challenge is talent evaluation and development, especially in the pitching department. The acquisitions of Pablo and Hanley have me shuddering. Combine that with the ridiculously over priced extension for Porcello and we have $260 million dedicated to terrible contracts. I didn't read many concerns about those contracts when they occurred. A quarter of a billion dollars set aside for a #4 starter with a 4+ career ERA an overweight third baseman with no power that can't hit lefties with an average glove and a broken down SS who is injury prone being moved to a new position. Those are the kinds of deals that strap payrolls and ruin seasons-- a lot of money for very little talent and ability.

 

Edit: Luckily the Red Sox payroll is large enough to absorb these types of sunk costs and still have plenty of flexibility. They may be forced to dump some of these contracts while eating a hefty portion of the money to free up additional payroll.

 

I am in the minority camp of thinking that they have and will have all of the money that they need to get the players that will help them win. I am sure that they have numbers that they don't want ti exceed. Call it a budget if you like, I don't. I am much more concerned with them wasting contracts on players that will remain on the team for X number of years due to the nature of guaranteed contracts. If they are going to block a younger better player by hiring a slob then they need to eat the contracts or do some trading. I was not totally opposed to extending Porcello. I just think that they gave him too much. Hind sight makes Sandoval's contract look bad. The Ramirez signing came with questions from day one. Their "budget" won't be the cause of them not being successful. Their success or lack thereof will be determined by who they want on the field every year. I really hope they can make some decisions that at least look really good from the beginning. I don't think that it will have anything to do with how much money we think they do or don't have. They have the money.

[a700hitter]

I am in the minority camp of thinking that they have and will have all of the money that they need to get the players that will help them win. I am sure that they have numbers that they don't want ti exceed. Call it a budget if you like, I don't. I am much more concerned with them wasting contracts on players that will remain on the team for X number of years due to the nature of guaranteed contracts. If they are going to block a younger better player by hiring a slob then they need to eat the contracts or do some trading. I was not totally opposed to extending Porcello. I just think that they gave him too much. Hind sight makes Sandoval's contract look bad. The Ramirez signing came with questions from day one. Their "budget" won't be the cause of them not being successful. Their success or lack thereof will be determined by who they want on the field every year. I really hope they can make some decisions that at least look really good from the beginning. I don't think that it will have anything to do with how much money we think they do or don't have. They have the money.

Their budget is an internal control. It is not a league imposed salary cap, and the owners have in the past exceeded the luxury tax threshold and have expressed willingness to exceed it again if it makes sense. I don't think they would hesitate to exceed the threshold to elevate the team out of this prolonged last place rut. Continuing to be not be competitive is a bigger threat to the value of the franchise than the risk of some long term contracts. You are right that they have the money. That is not the issue. Neither of us are saying that they have unlimited resources, but they do have resources that are significant enough that money isn't their biggest challenge.

[sk7326]

I am in the minority camp of thinking that they have and will have all of the money that they need to get the players that will help them win. I am sure that they have numbers that they don't want ti exceed. Call it a budget if you like, I don't. I am much more concerned with them wasting contracts on players that will remain on the team for X number of years due to the nature of guaranteed contracts. If they are going to block a younger better player by hiring a slob then they need to eat the contracts or do some trading. I was not totally opposed to extending Porcello. I just think that they gave him too much. Hind sight makes Sandoval's contract look bad. The Ramirez signing came with questions from day one. Their "budget" won't be the cause of them not being successful. Their success or lack thereof will be determined by who they want on the field every year. I really hope they can make some decisions that at least look really good from the beginning. I don't think that it will have anything to do with how much money we think they do or don't have. They have the money.

 

They have the money to make a strong move ... plus the market provides a strong financial incentive ... the wins pay off in a way they don't in say Tampa Bay.

 

The Porcello extension is fine. It's not wholesale - and clearly he did not pitch well for 3/4 of the season - but that is the going rate for a pitcher of his relative merit (on the high side granted), who is young enough to project some modest improvement. The path to him being worth the contract is not difficult - and they are not locked into any physical decline.

 

The Panda contract was the diciest of the three because I just don't think he's that good. I know why you give him a big deal - they had literally nobody at 3B, he is 29 so there was some projection if you squinted hard enough, and Fenway was tailor made for his Wade Boggs-esque spray chart. But those were opinions I did not share.

 

Ramirez I thought made sense as a 3B, and less so as a LF (although his impossibly bad fielding at LF was not something a reasonable person could have anticipated given the long history of potted plants, cinder blocks and guys named Kevin Mitchell who have patrolled it adequately). But he was brought in to hit, and that he did not hit was surprising. If that part gets fixed, the fielding sins are tolerable - I am going to assume a return to the infield will help him rise up to "non Vine-worthy". The Red Sox will undoubtedly try to move him - and the market for Ramirez might not be as barren as it looks (especially if the Red Sox are just trying to deal him, return be damned) because the contract is not that long and his non-hitting reads "injury-driven fluke" for now.

[cp176]

I agree with much of what you said. In the last few (4 or 5), Ramirez has had trouble saying healthy. Wherever he is next year, the Sox will pay for it. He probably will hit if healthy, but the buts and what ifs are there with him. He represents a bad risk if you have to pay for it.

[cp176]

Their budget is an internal control. It is not a league imposed salary cap, and the owners have in the past exceeded the luxury tax threshold and have expressed willingness to exceed it again if it makes sense. I don't think they would hesitate to exceed the threshold to elevate the team out of this prolonged last place rut. Continuing to be not be competitive is a bigger threat to the value of the franchise than the risk of some long term contracts. You are right that they have the money. That is not the issue. Neither of us are saying that they have unlimited resources, but they do have resources that are significant enough that money isn't their biggest challenge.

 

I agree with you. This organization has wasted more money on bad contracts than some teams have to allocate to contracts in general. Nothing they spend now will have a negative impact on what they do 5 plus years out. The only way they could hurt themselves might be by a failure to lock up a few rising stars if they get the chance.

[Kimmi]

Oh, okay. My bad. I misunderstood "shuddering" as a bad thing.

 

The team has been terrible for the last 2 seasons, and they have spent a s*** ton of money in the process. I will not blame David Price for driving us into last place. If we should find ourselves in last place in a few year under DD, I am fairly certain that there will be many reasons for it other than David Price.

 

Shuddering is a bad thing, but as I said earlier, you are making a bigger deal out of it than it is when I say that I shudder at the thought of a long term contract. It was a figure of speech to state my general disapproval of big contracts.

 

And if we're in last place in a few years, and there are other reasons for that besides Price, perhaps some of those reasons could have been corrected if money were not tied up in Price's contract.

[Kimmi]

What limited budget do you speak of? I still don't understand why you think the Sox would be strapped by a $30. contract that had become dead money. That would still leave about $140.-$150. mil to fill out a roster.

 

The Sox likely would not be strapped by one large contract. Regardless, tying up roughly 16% of payroll on one player is a lot of eggs to throw in one basket. The team loses some flexibility and options on what it can do as far as assembling a team.

 

The money is just part of the issue. Let's say Price is making $30 mil a year and he declines quickly in the last 3 years of the contract. What do you do with him? The Sox are not going to DFA him. He would be difficult to trade. Because of the large salary, he will most likely continue to take the ball every 5th day, to the detriment of the team. And in taking the ball every 5th day, he might very well prohibit a more deserving youngster from being in the rotation.

[Kimmi]

I'd rather pay an ace $30M, than have signed Pablo and Hanley, but we're stuck with at least one of them. I still think Pedroia's contract is too high, but with all of these young guys in the system you have the ability to overpay here and there and not be too cash strapped.

 

Has Buchholz's extension been signed? Trade Hanley and eat 10M per year. That's 23M savings that could go towards Price or someone else.

 

Honestly, I still think there is one more year to go before this team truly becomes a contender. I'm worried about a few sophmore slumps.

 

I get that everyone would rather sign Price than Hanley or Pablo. The issue is not which signing would be better. The issue is the problem with large contracts, period. Just because signing Price would make more sense to most than signing Hanley or Pablo doesn't make the risks of siging Price to a huge contract any better.

 

Many of the young players that we currently have will be either in their last arb years or will become free agents at roughly the same time Price's contract is likely to be more of a burden than good. Those youngsters will no longer be inexpensive if they continue to perform and develop.