A Realistic View at 2017 Part I

[Hugh2]

Oh, NO! You're not going to drag me into another debate on Iglesias

 

I have no problem with admitting when I'm wrong. I was one of Hanley's biggest critics in 2015 but I was on his bandwagon BIG TIME by July of 2016. And as critical as I've been of Sandoval (a/k/a The Fat man) I'd like nothing better than to be proven wrong about him, too.

 

I think S5 would be happy to admit he was wrong if Kimbrel returns to form in 2016. I'm skeptical too, but he did look dominant at times last year and his stuff is still electric.

 

I think the Thornburg move was a great depth move, this guy can set up and probably step into the closers role if Kimbrel goes down or blows up. I'm also very optimistic on what Barnes and Kelly can do out of the pen next year. kelly showed promise there and Barnes at times looked like the most reliable guy there and he's just entering his prime.

 

And then there is the triumphant return of Carson Smith at some point.

 

With a little luck, and a clean bill of health, this bullpen could look really really really good.

[S5Dewey]

Definitely not using that one on my wife.

 

Yeha.... that's probably a god idea, and one that occured to me too. Or my daughter for that matter. Some things are just between us guys, OK? :D

[moonslav59]

Wait a minute here. Please don't go putting words in to my mouth. It's not sanitary! You have NEVER seen me root against Bogaerts. Ya...I've said that he's not a GG defender but that's just stating a fact. I want for him to do better and better. Ya, I wanted him at 3B but only because (IMO) it would have helped THE TEAM.

 

Agreed. You have never rooted against Bogey, and both of us never saw the argument as Bogey vs Iggy. It was always Bogey & Iggy vs Bogey and Middy-Holt-Pablo....

[moonslav59]

Team control ends after.... (Luxury tax cost)

 

2017: Buch ($13.5M), Young $6.5M & Moreland $5.5M

 

2018: Kimbrel ($10.5M), Pomeranz (~$4.7M), Kelly (`$2.6M) & Ross (`$1.8M)

--HanRam has a vesting $22M option based on 1050 PAs from 16-17 and passing a physical

--Price has an opt out ($31M)

 

2019: Porcello ($20.6M), Ramirez ($22M see above option), Bogey ($???), Thornburg ($???), Holt ($???), Rutledge ($???) & Workman ($???)

--Sandoval $17M option with $5M buyout

 

2020: Sandoval ($17M see above option), Betts, JBJ, Wright, Smith, Vazquez & Leon

 

2021: Pedey ($13.6M), ERod, Swihart, Barnes, Elias, Hembree

 

[sk7326]

That Theo is a smart guy...

 

Koji is the man.

 

Best of luck to him wherever he goes.

 

The Cubs are collecting options. Wade Davis, Uehara, Carl Edwards Jr ... there are very very few relievers you plug and play and feel like you are done. 2004 Foulke was one of those pitchers and he fell to pieces after that.

 

Thornburg made Uehara a luxury - but again, the best way to build a bullpen is to amass guys with bat-missing stuff and let them sort it out.

[sk7326]

I think S5 would be happy to admit he was wrong if Kimbrel returns to form in 2016. I'm skeptical too, but he did look dominant at times last year and his stuff is still electric.

 

I think the Thornburg move was a great depth move, this guy can set up and probably step into the closers role if Kimbrel goes down or blows up. I'm also very optimistic on what Barnes and Kelly can do out of the pen next year. kelly showed promise there and Barnes at times looked like the most reliable guy there and he's just entering his prime.

 

And then there is the triumphant return of Carson Smith at some point.

 

With a little luck, and a clean bill of health, this bullpen could look really really really good.

 

Kimbrel's command got spotty, but he was striking out as many as ever. The bet is he will be fine - limited value because he is not that flexible (but you knew that when you traded for him). The Thornburg move allows them to ease back Carson Smith. Bringing back Abad makes sense to me - realistically you want to keep as many pitchers who could be good. The history of bullpen dynamics shows that some of these guys will stink and some won't. Numbers address that risk.

[moonslav59]

The Cubs are collecting options. Wade Davis, Uehara, Carl Edwards Jr ... there are very very few relievers you plug and play and feel like you are done. 2004 Foulke was one of those pitchers and he fell to pieces after that.

 

Thornburg made Uehara a luxury - but again, the best way to build a bullpen is to amass guys with bat-missing stuff and let them sort it out.

 

Couldn't agree more, and I still think Uehara has "bat-missing stuff". I'd loved to have had him as our 3rd guy, but I think between Kelly and Buch, we'll be okay, until Smith is back and settled in.

[moonslav59]

Kimbrel's command got spotty, but he was striking out as many as ever. The bet is he will be fine - limited value because he is not that flexible (but you knew that when you traded for him). The Thornburg move allows them to ease back Carson Smith. Bringing back Abad makes sense to me - realistically you want to keep as many pitchers who could be good. The history of bullpen dynamics shows that some of these guys will stink and some won't. Numbers address that risk.

 

We may have an options crunch by opening day:

 

Closer: Kimbrel

RP2: Thornburg

RP3: Kelly (later: Smith)

RP4: Buchholz

PR5: Pomeranz L

RP6: Ross L

RP7: Barnes

RP8: (all out of options) Abad, Hembree, Elias

 

We'll probably go with 7 RP'ers, so unless someone gets hurt, we may have to get creative or lose all 3.

 

I like Hembree the best of the three, and since Thornburg is much better with lefties, maybe we won't need a LOOGY as much. Besides, we have lefties Buch & Ross in the pen as well.

 

We also have some minor league bullpen depth:

Scott, Martin, Workman, N Ramirez, Ysla and maybe Owens or Johnson.

Edited December 9, 2016 by moonslav59

[harmony]

We may have an options crunch by opening day:

Besides, we have lefties Buch & Ross in the pen as well.

Did you mean lefty Drew Pomeranz?

[sk7326]

We may have an options crunch by opening day:

 

Closer: Kimbrel

RP2: Thornburg

RP3: Kelly (later: Smith)

RP4: Buchholz L

RP5: Ross L

RP6: Barnes

RP7: (all out of options) Abad, Hembree, Elias

 

I like Hembree the best of the three, and since Thornburg is much better with lefties, maybe we won't need a LOOGY as much. Besides, we have lefties Buch & Ross in the pen as well.

 

We also have some minor league bullpen depth:

Scott, Martin, Workman, N Ramirez, Ysla and maybe Owens or Johnson.

 

Agreed - the big point is this ... some subset of those guys should work out because they all have quality stuff. The foolishness is betting on any particular set of pitchers as the answer.

[moonslav59]

Did you mean lefty Drew Pomeranz?

 

Yes. My bad.

[moonslav59]

Agreed - the big point is this ... some subset of those guys should work out because they all have quality stuff. The foolishness is betting on any particular set of pitchers as the answer.

 

I forgot Pomeranz, and mistakenly had Buch as a lefty.

 

There may not be any room for Abad due to his lack of options remaining.

[Bellhorn04]

He cited Cots. I checked all the bonuses listed under Pedey and Sale. I saw nothing that could cause the difference, but maybe other sources showed some bonus missed by Cots.

 

I don't make up numbers either, and Cots is probably the most respected source for salary information.

 

I'm trusting my source, but I realize it could be wrong, and then so could I.

 

 

moon, I e-mailed Alex Speier about this and here is his reply, which is linked to a column he wrote a few years ago about a similar calculation involving Jon Lester's AAV when he was with the Sox. There's always a catch!

 

This explains the formula in play:

 

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2013/11/08/creative-luxury-tax-accounting-201-jon-lesters-average-annual-value-re-explained

[moonslav59]

moon, I e-mailed Alex Speier about this and here is his reply, which is linked to a column he wrote a few years ago about a similar calculation involving Jon Lester's AAV when he was with the Sox. There's always a catch!

 

This explains the formula in play:

 

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2013/11/08/creative-luxury-tax-accounting-201-jon-lesters-average-annual-value-re-explained

 

Thanks. It sounds like he knows a heck of a lot about it than I do.

 

I've just have seen so many different articles that were clearly wrong that I always doubt what I read.

 

Thanks again for the info.

 

Using his numbers, if we can eliminate the in season acquisitions and not have to pay too many minor leaguers Major League pay during the year, then maybe we can squeak under the limit without dumping anyone. I'm thinking that if we trade Abad, we can stay under, and if we need someone later, maybe we can trade Buch and his half season salary to stay under over the whole season.

[S5Dewey]

Thanks. It sounds like he knows a heck of a lot about it than I do.

 

I've just have seen so many different articles that were clearly wrong that I always doubt what I read.

 

Thanks again for the info.

 

Using his numbers, if we can eliminate the in season acquisitions and not have to pay too many minor leaguers Major League pay during the year, then maybe we can squeak under the limit without dumping anyone. I'm thinking that if we trade Abad, we can stay under, and if we need someone later, maybe we can trade Buch and his half season salary to stay under over the whole season.

 

This raises the question with me of exactly when we have to be under the LT Limit. Is there a date certain when it's calculated? Is it an average daily salary over the entire year? Moon, you seem to know as much about the LT as anyone here. What's your thought?

[moonslav59]

This raises the question with me of exactly when we have to be under the LT Limit. Is there a date certain when it's calculated? Is it an average daily salary over the entire year? Moon, you seem to know as much about the LT as anyone here. What's your thought?

 

I'm pretty sure, it's based on the full season- starting with opening day. I think everything is pro-rated, if a player is called up or traded away or acquired.

 

What I'm sure of is how much revenue sharing is lkost by going over the limit. Does a team lose all of it? Do they lose more by going over for 2 or 3 straight years or by a certain amount in a given year?

 

I know that there are restrictions to draft and international allowances that can be lowered, if a team goes over, but I'm not sure how much those are.

 

Anybody have the details?

[S5Dewey]

I'm pretty sure, it's based on the full season- starting with opening day. I think everything is pro-rated, if a player is called up or traded away or acquired.

 

What I'm sure of is how much revenue sharing is lkost by going over the limit. Does a team lose all of it? Do they lose more by going over for 2 or 3 straight years or by a certain amount in a given year?

 

I know that there are restrictions to draft and international allowances that can be lowered, if a team goes over, but I'm not sure how much those are.

 

Anybody have the details?

 

I don't know about the international signings but I'm quite sure that starting in 2017 any team that goes over its LT limit forfeits all of it's Revenue Sharing.

 

Actually it's a bit more complicated than that. As I understand it, each team pays 31% of their baseball related revenue into a fund and that money is then equally divided among the 30 teams. Consequently the teams with the lowest revenue pay in the least but because every team gets the same amount of revenue sharing they fare the best.

At the other end of the spectrum is the teams with the most revenue sharing. They pay in the most and therefore get back less than they paid in.

 

However, starting in 2017 any team that exceeds the LT level will not get any revenue sharing money for that year. It's pretty cut and dried in that if you exceed the LT level you don't get your share of the revenue sharing pie. It's on a year by year basis and since these teams get NO revenue sharing there is no escalation for exceeding the LT level in multiple years - they're getting nothing back the first year and it remains at nothing every year!

 

At least that's my understanding after having read it and reread it and reread it. If someone got something different from that after reading it I'm more that willing to listen.

[moonslav59]

I don't know about the international signings but I'm quite sure that starting in 2017 any team that goes over its LT limit forfeits all of it's Revenue Sharing.

 

I heard going over, maybe by a lot, reduces the allotment for signing draft choices and the international pool money.

 

Any idea what amount the revenue sharing is? If it's over $5 or 10M, then there's a pretty big incentive to get under the cap, especially when you factor in the 50% tax on the amounts going over the limit.

 

To me, the scariest thing is penalizing/reducing the draft and international pools for going over.

 

Anyone know about that?

[S5Dewey]

I don't know about the international signings but I'm quite sure that starting in 2017 any team that goes over its LT limit forfeits all of it's Revenue Sharing.

 

I heard going over, maybe by a lot, reduces the allotment for signing draft choices and the international pool money.

 

Any idea what amount the revenue sharing is? If it's over $5 or 10M, then there's a pretty big incentive to get under the cap, especially when you factor in the 50% tax on the amounts going over the limit.

 

To me, the scariest thing is penalizing/reducing the draft and international pools for going over.

 

Anyone know about that?

 

The amount of RS each team gets has to be in flux every year because the amount of revenue the teams take in every year varies. I haven't seen any numbers for previous years but I haven't looked either. I will later. But my guess is that it's significant.

I haven't read the entire CBA - I haven't needed a sleeping pill that badly - but nothing I've read there says anything connecting exceeding the LT with draft picks or international signings. But didn't we lose our right to international signings for a couple of years due to some punitary penalty the Sox are paying for "mismanaging" the payouts to the signings?

[moonslav59]

The amount of RS each team gets has to be in flux every year because the amount of revenue the teams take in every year varies. I haven't seen any numbers for previous years but I haven't looked either. I will later. But my guess is that it's significant.

I haven't read the entire CBA - I haven't needed a sleeping pill that badly - but nothing I've read there says anything connecting exceeding the LT with draft picks or international signings. But didn't we lose our right to international signings for a couple of years due to some punitary penalty the Sox are paying for "mismanaging" the payouts to the signings?

 

I've googled the new CBA, but found nothing with details.

[Kimmi]

The Cubs are collecting options. Wade Davis, Uehara, Carl Edwards Jr ... there are very very few relievers you plug and play and feel like you are done. 2004 Foulke was one of those pitchers and he fell to pieces after that.

 

Thornburg made Uehara a luxury - but again, the best way to build a bullpen is to amass guys with bat-missing stuff and let them sort it out.

 

You and I are in complete agreement on this. I have said this over and over again.

[moonslav59]

You and I are in complete agreement on this. I have said this over and over again.

 

That makes 3 of us.

[Bellhorn04]

But a relatively proven lights-out guy like Chapman, Jansen or Miller is a nice thing to have, especially in the postseason. The Cubs and the Guardians paid a lot in prospects for Chapman and Miller, and the investments paid off.

[Kimmi]

But a relatively proven lights-out guy like Chapman, Jansen or Miller is a nice thing to have, especially in the postseason. The Cubs and the Guardians paid a lot in prospects for Chapman and Miller, and the investments paid off.

 

Those lights out guys often come out of nowhere. You don't have to spend a fortune on them.

[Spudboy]

You and I are in complete agreement on this. I have said this over and over again.

 

That makes four of us.

[cp176]

That makes four of us.

 

I think that that pretty much makes all of us (maybe not quite but close).

[Bellhorn04]

Those lights out guys often come out of nowhere. You don't have to spend a fortune on them.

 

But is it prudent to count on one coming out of nowhere?

 

Theo obviously went after proven guys in Chapman and now Davis and was willing to pay fairly heavily in talent and money.

 

Personally I think you want to have a couple of guys who are proven. You can take the 'throw stuff against the wall' approach with the rest.

[Bellhorn04]

I think that that pretty much makes all of us (maybe not quite but close).

 

What exactly is it all of us are in agreement on?

[Kimmi]

But is it prudent to count on one coming out of nowhere?

 

Theo obviously went after proven guys in Chapman and now Davis and was willing to pay fairly heavily in talent and money.

 

Personally I think you want to have a couple of guys who are proven. You can take the 'throw stuff against the wall' approach with the rest.

 

I do agree with the idea that the team should have an established arm as the closer.

 

I don't agree that one should pay out a long term contract to do so.

 

I loved Papelbon and have been one of his biggest supporters, but I would never have given him the contract the Phillies gave him. I would never give Chapman the contract that the Yankees gave him.

 

You can find a reliever who will provide almost as much value, if not as much value, for a fraction of the cost.

[Kimmi]

What exactly is it all of us are in agreement on?

 

It doesn't matter. We just all know to agree with me.