Overall assessment of team needs

[Eddy Ballgame]

I seriously doubt he gets $19M x 2, which is what VMart will make.

 

I'm not saying I'd go that high for Beltran, but I'd rather pay him that than trade anything of value for VMart and pay the same.

 

I think Beltran will get at least 20 x 2, considering who the teams are that are involved.

[moonslav59]

I think Beltran will get at least 20 x 2, considering who the teams are that are involved.

 

Then I'd rather sign Beltran for $1M more a year than VMart makes, since it won't cost us any prospects.

 

I think Beltran will sign for $36M/2.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Then I'd rather sign Beltran for $1M more a year than VMart makes, since it won't cost us any prospects.

 

I think Beltran will sign for $36M/2.

 

So would I. Beltran supposedly likes Boston, but he is obviously familiar with Texas, NY & Houston. He may choose not to come to here. If not, V-mart may be a plan B or C if the price is reasonable.

[Dojji]

If we can't get the best guys on the market, I don't want us trolling for scraps. We do NOT need a full time DH. If an obvious deal to bring in a great one appears, great, if not, no problem.

[moonslav59]

We could use a Pablo-Young platoon at DH, but then 3B is more of an open book.

[Nick]

We lose Clay B and Young next year, saving close to $20M. Fernado Abad is the only player becoming FA after 2018 assuming we pick up the club option on Kimbrel and Price does not opt out.

 

We need Moncada and Kopech to step in by 2018 to provide some cheap alternatives as our arbitration numbers continue to grow. In reality, Price opting out may not be the worst thing to happen. That's why I'd like to see Sox extend Pomeranz. Buy out two years of FA years. Why not give him a 4 year deal right now (2 arb years plus 2)?

 

I'm at $185M assuming $22M for arbitration players, $12M each for rest of 40 man squad and benefits. Assuming luxury tax is raised to $200M, we only have $15M for FA signings. Trading Clay B would relieve another $13M but I don't see that happening until August assuming Wright, Pomeranz and Rodriquez are all healthy and pitching well.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Nick

[moonslav59]

We lose Clay B and Young next year, saving close to $20M. Fernado Abad is the only player becoming FA after 2018 assuming we pick up the club option on Kimbrel and Price does not opt out.

 

Pomeranz, Kelly and Ross are all FAs after 2018. HanRam has a vesting option that is guaranteed if Ramirez has 1,050 plate appearances in 2017-18 and passes club physical after 2018 season

 

 

We need Moncada and Kopech to step in by 2018 to provide some cheap alternatives as our arbitration numbers continue to grow. In reality, Price opting out may not be the worst thing to happen. That's why I'd like to see Sox extend Pomeranz. Buy out two years of FA years. Why not give him a 4 year deal right now (2 arb years plus 2)?

 

How much are you suggesting we offer?

 

Isn't extending Bogey, Betts & JBJ a higher priority?

 

 

I'm at $185M assuming $22M for arbitration players, $12M each for rest of 40 man squad and benefits. Assuming luxury tax is raised to $200M, we only have $15M for FA signings. Trading Clay B would relieve another $13M but I don't see that happening until August assuming Wright, Pomeranz and Rodriquez are all healthy and pitching well.

 

We can't even get Beltran for $15M, so I think we'll either go over the luxury limit again (I think at a %50 cost) or dump some salary. I think we may look to trade Buch this winter, but we'd have to find some sort of veteran 6th starter at a cheaper price. The other option is to try and trade Pablo and maybe save $5-8M a year off the budget. That would allow us to maybe sign Beltran and a cheap RP'er or a cheaper platoon DH type and 2 good RP'ers.

[Nick]

Isn't extending Bogey, Betts & JBJ a higher priority?[/b]

 

Yes, but we don't have the money right now....I bet Boras won't take anything less than $20M per year for Brandley Jr, first FA of the three. I don't see any room for that right now.

 

I think we will end up trading at least one out of that group. Bradley Jr seems most logical. Don't get me wrong, I want to keep him but I'm not sure if we have enough money to go around.

 

I suggested in another thread maybe the move should be made after 2017 season, when he is still under team control for three more years. Perhaps he can bring in a #3/#4 type cost controlled starting pitcher.

 

Again that's exactly why I want to keep as many prospects as possible. We need to fill in LF, (assuming Beni is moved to CF), 3B and 1B. Lets assume for minute Hanley eventually ends up as DH. Swihart (I'm okay with him catching also), Travis, Moncada, Devers and Shaw all need to show they belong in MLB.

 

It's very possible that Xander may be out of our reach also. I think we will do everything to keep Betts and that's going to be expensive. He's our #1 priority. Price opting out will ease the money situation. Porcello, Pomeranz, Wright and E Rod have to step it up.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Nick

[moonslav59]

Isn't extending Bogey, Betts & JBJ a higher priority?[/b]

 

Yes, but we don't have the money right now....I bet Boras won't take anything less than $20M per year for Brandley Jr, first FA of the three. I don't see any room for that right now.

 

I think we will end up trading at least one out of that group. Bradley Jr seems most logical. Don't get me wrong, I want to keep him but I'm not sure if we have enough money to go around.

 

I suggested in another thread maybe the move should be made after 2017 season, when he is still under team control for three more years. Perhaps he can bring in a #3/#4 type cost controlled starting pitcher.

 

Again that's exactly why I want to keep as many prospects as possible. We need to fill in LF, (assuming Beni is moved to CF), 3B and 1B. Lets assume for minute Hanley eventually ends up as DH. Swihart (I'm okay with him catching also), Travis, Moncada, Devers and Shaw all need to show they belong in MLB.

 

It's very possible that Xander may be out of our reach also. I think we will do everything to keep Betts and that's going to be expensive. He's our #1 priority. Price opting out will ease the money situation. Porcello, Pomeranz, Wright and E Rod have to step it up.

 

We don't have the money to extend anyone right now, including Pomeranz.

[Nick]

We don't have the money to extend anyone right now, including Pomeranz.

 

You don't think he'll take 4/$40M?

[moonslav59]

He might, but that eats up some of the money we may need to extend the big Bs.

[southpaw777]

The Sox will owe less than 100m in Xanders last year of arb. My guess is they will have plenty for him and Betts...who is a fA in 2021 along with Leon and JBJ. (Leon and JBj have 4 arb years) Vaz and Wright are also FA that eyar too, but obviously wouldnt cost nearly what the 3Bs would Edited November 29, 2016 by southpaw777

[moonslav59]

The Sox will owe less than 100m in Xanders last year of arb. My guess is they will have plenty for him and Betts...who is a fA in 2021 along with Leon and JBJ. (Leon and JBj have 4 arb years) Vaz and Wright are also FA that eyar too, but obviously wouldnt cost nearly what the 3Bs would

 

We will have signed or traded for more salary by the time our killer Bs reach free agency.

 

We will have to replace Porcello the year Bogey is free. That will not come cheap.

[Nick]

We will have signed or traded for more salary by the time our killer Bs reach free agency.

 

We will have to replace Porcello the year Bogey is free. That will not come cheap.

 

This is why someone like Kopech needs to be retained and developed. It really is about managing the 'program', to put it collegiately. In a sense, 'luxury tax' is the best tool for sports organizations to keep the owners in check. It's not a hard cap and owners can go over it but there's a penalty attached. It can also work the other way. Sox FO can use it as a defense to its fan base from claiming the team is cheap and hoarding money. Clearly we are one of big spenders as evidenced by either being close to or going over the cap annually. It also shines light on bad signings. We are currently hamstrunged by some bad investments. That will bite us in the ass as some of our younger players approach free agency.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Nick

[moonslav59]

This is why someone like Kopech needs to be retained and developed. It really is about managing the 'program', to put it collegiately. In a sense, 'luxury tax' is the best tool for sports organizations to keep the owners in check. It's not a hard cap and owners can go over it but there's a penalty attached. It can also work the other way. Sox FO can use it as a defense to its fan base from claiming the team is cheap and hoarding money. Clearly we are one of big spenders as evidenced by either being close to or going over the cap annually. It also shines light on bad signings. We are currently hamstrunged by some bad investments. That will bite us in the ass as some of our younger players approach free agency.

 

I'm totally on board with that thinking, but trading for a low cost ace like Quintana (or Sale) makes the payroll argument a little less forceful.

[Bellhorn04]

This is why someone like Kopech needs to be retained and developed. It really is about managing the 'program', to put it collegiately. In a sense, 'luxury tax' is the best tool for sports organizations to keep the owners in check. It's not a hard cap and owners can go over it but there's a penalty attached. It can also work the other way. Sox FO can use it as a defense to its fan base from claiming the team is cheap and hoarding money. Clearly we are one of big spenders as evidenced by either being close to or going over the cap annually. It also shines light on bad signings. We are currently hamstrunged by some bad investments. That will bite us in the ass as some of our younger players approach free agency.

 

Good points.

[S5Dewey]

The Luxury Tax actually works against the teams with less revenue though.

 

If a team is in a bidding war for a player and their revenue only lets them to to the LT threshold the penalty imposed for going over the threshold is a double-whammy for that team. That allows the higher revenue team to swoop in and sign that player.

 

This probably isn't a big deal for one year but if that lower revenue team decides to exceed the LT limit for that one year the penalty gets larger. Even if they don't continue to exceed it in future years the salary of the player they signed may keep them from signing other high-quality players which would push them above the limit - which they can't afford.

 

The LT works well for the teams with big revenue but it also hurts the poorer teams.

[moonslav59]

The Luxury Tax actually works against the teams with less revenue though.

 

If a team is in a bidding war for a player and their revenue only lets them to to the LT threshold the penalty imposed for going over the threshold is a double-whammy for that team. That allows the higher revenue team to swoop in and sign that player.

 

This probably isn't a big deal for one year but if that lower revenue team decides to exceed the LT limit for that one year the penalty gets larger. Even if they don't continue to exceed it in future years the salary of the player they signed may keep them from signing other high-quality players which would push them above the limit - which they can't afford.

 

The LT works well for the teams with big revenue but it also hurts the poorer teams.

 

It might hurt teams that are under but close to the limit, but so many teams are far away from the limit, so they are never close to going over the limit and afraid to sign anyone due to any threat of a draft penalty.

 

As of right now, according to BR, only 3 teams are over $150M.

 

I see maybe 6-7 teams that will be close to the luxury tax limit this year (LAD, BOS, DET, SFG, Cubs, NYY and maybe LAA or STL.

 

This year, only 3 teams were within $15M of the luxury tax (or over it) on opening day. That means close to 27 teams had no restraints on signing a big cost player. Only 6 teams had an opening day payroll over $146M. If you count the player pension payment, that means 24 teams could have spent at least $34M without going over the limit.

[moonslav59]

The Luxury Tax actually works against the teams with less revenue though.

 

If a team is in a bidding war for a player and their revenue only lets them to to the LT threshold the penalty imposed for going over the threshold is a double-whammy for that team. That allows the higher revenue team to swoop in and sign that player.

 

This probably isn't a big deal for one year but if that lower revenue team decides to exceed the LT limit for that one year the penalty gets larger. Even if they don't continue to exceed it in future years the salary of the player they signed may keep them from signing other high-quality players which would push them above the limit - which they can't afford.

 

The LT works well for the teams with big revenue but it also hurts the poorer teams.

 

There's also the Competitive Balance Tax that goes to the poorest teams.

[S5Dewey]

It might hurt teams that are under but close to the limit, but so many teams are far away from the limit, so they are never close to going over the limit and afraid to sign anyone due to any threat of a draft penalty.

 

As of right now, according to BR, only 3 teams are over $150M.

 

I see maybe 6-7 teams that will be close to the luxury tax limit this year (LAD, BOS, DET, SFG, Cubs, NYY and maybe LAA or STL.

 

This year, only 3 teams were within $15M of the luxury tax (or over it) on opening day. That means close to 27 teams had no restraints on signing a big cost player. Only 6 teams had an opening day payroll over $146M. If you count the player pension payment, that means 24 teams could have spent at least $34M without going over the limit.

 

I see maybe 6-7 teams that will be close to the luxury tax limit this year (LAD, BOS, DET, SFG, Cubs, NYY and maybe LAA or STL.

 

And what do these teams have in common? 5 of the 8 qualified for the playoffs. One who didn't was the NYY which is an anomaly in itself!

 

I don't know if it's because of the LT or the overall spending, but one could certainly say that if the LT is supposed to create parity it's not working.

[S5Dewey]

There's also the Competitive Balance Tax that goes to the poorest teams.

 

IIRC the Competitive Balance Tax is another word for the Luxury Tax. Are you sure you're not confusing that with Revenue Sharing? And BTW, here's an excerpt from Fangraphs regarding Revenue Sharing:

 

By 2016, the fifteen teams in the largest markets in baseball will be disqualified from receiving revenue sharing. This feature is being phased in over the coming years. The disqualified clubs will receive a refund for the amount that they would have received in revenue sharing, although teams that have exceeded the Luxury Tax threshold in recent years will not receive a full refund. (MLB.com)

[moonslav59]

I see maybe 6-7 teams that will be close to the luxury tax limit this year (LAD, BOS, DET, SFG, Cubs, NYY and maybe LAA or STL.

 

And what do these teams have in common? 5 of the 8 qualified for the playoffs. One who didn't was the NYY which is an anomaly in itself!

 

I don't know if it's because of the LT or the overall spending, but one could certainly say that if the LT is supposed to create parity it's not working.

 

But, who are the poor teams close to the luxury limit? They can't be that poor, if they're spending over $150-160M on salaries.

 

The issue of parity is a good issue to bring up, and the luxury tax and competitive balance tax were supposed to help poorer teams in 2 ways:

 

1) Penalize richer teams for spending too much. This does seem to affect richer teams spending, except for maybe the Dodgers- who haven't won a ring since the luxury tax was started.

 

2) Give funds to poorer teams that were meant for spending on payroll not as profits in the pockets of owners.

 

I'm surprised baseball still works the way it does. The home team should give half of their gate receipts and TV money into a fund that is then divided by 30 and spread out evenly, or at least the visiting team should get half of the money earned for each game, after all, there'd be no game without two teams.

 

Teams like the Yankees and Dodgers will always have a big advantage, unless they share some of their profits. Even if you took half of their money and split it 30 ways, they'd still have much more money than the lowest teams, but the gap would be lessened.

 

Taking away draft picks for going over the limit would help a lot.

 

Maybe something like this:

 

2nd round pick for first time over and by less than $10M over. 1st round pick if over $10M.

 

1st round pick if over $10M second year in a row. Add a third round pick if over $20M.

 

I also think some poor teams should move, like TB to NC or Sacremento.

[moonslav59]

IIRC the Competitive Balance Tax is another word for the Luxury Tax. Are you sure you're not confusing that with Revenue Sharing? And BTW, here's an excerpt from Fangraphs regarding Revenue Sharing:

 

By 2016, the fifteen teams in the largest markets in baseball will be disqualified from receiving revenue sharing. This feature is being phased in over the coming years. The disqualified clubs will receive a refund for the amount that they would have received in revenue sharing, although teams that have exceeded the Luxury Tax threshold in recent years will not receive a full refund. (MLB.com)

 

Yeah, I confused it with sharing.

[jacksonianmarch]

The players want to have draft pick forfeiture removed from the QO process, but they don't want to allow the league to take a pick away for crossing the LT. Makes sense if they want their cake and eat it too. They'll have to give something up, probably the international draft. That being said, the players have been somewhat stagnant in their piece of the pie for awhile while the teams have managed huge profits. My guess is they will get most of what they want.

[notin]

The Luxury Tax actually works against the teams with less revenue though.

 

If a team is in a bidding war for a player and their revenue only lets them to to the LT threshold the penalty imposed for going over the threshold is a double-whammy for that team. That allows the higher revenue team to swoop in and sign that player.

 

This probably isn't a big deal for one year but if that lower revenue team decides to exceed the LT limit for that one year the penalty gets larger. Even if they don't continue to exceed it in future years the salary of the player they signed may keep them from signing other high-quality players which would push them above the limit - which they can't afford.

 

The LT works well for the teams with big revenue but it also hurts the poorer teams.

 

Technically it's the debt -equity ratio portion of the CBA that works against lower revenue teams. Basically teams who spent more than they take in through some needlessly complicated formula. This is why the Tigers are unloading contracts (and why they probably let Dombrowski go).

[moonslav59]

I think penalizing teams going over the luxury tax with a lost draft pick will not affect as many big signings as the QO lost pick does.

 

There's only 2-3 teams going over the luxury limit each year. They may choose to spend less, but once their over, signing another player doesn't add another lost pick, so I doubt it slows the Dodgers down.

 

It might keep a team like the Sox from staying over the limit every year.

 

Personally, I think they should give more compensation to poor teams losing good players than they do now. When a team like the Sox lose a good player, they should get less comp than a poorer team. That might help the lower teams stay competitive.

[moonslav59]

And what do these teams have in common? 5 of the 8 qualified for the playoffs. One who didn't was the NYY which is an anomaly in itself!

 

Well, in 2015 of 5 the top 8 spending team missed the playoffs. The 9th team (PHI) missed too...by a lot. The number 16 team (KCR) beat the number 21 team (NYM).

 

The Guardians were the 24th highest spending team this year.

 

In 2014, the 3 team (PHI), 4 team (BOS), 5 team (DET) and 8 team (TEX) all missed the playoffs. The 7th highest spending team (SFG) beat the 19th highest spending team (KCR).

 

In 2013, the number 4 team (BOS) beat the number 10 team (STL), but the number 1 team (NYY) missed the playoffs. So did number 3 (PHI) and number 6 (SFG) and 8 (CWS) and 9 (TOR). 11, 12, 14 and 15 missed too.

 

I'd say the Royals, Guardians and Mets have shown that parity is better than it was back in the day when the Yanks bought championship after championship.

[S5Dewey]

I'd say the Royals, Guardians and Mets have shown that parity is better than it was back in the day when the Yanks bought championship after championship.

[/b]

But aren't you going back to the pre-revenue sharing and pre-Luxury Tax days with that statement? (I'll take your word for it because I'm too lazy to look it up this morning. )

 

However, I agree, and I think you can include Tampa Bay in that list also. It's proving that teams that are well managed at the FO level can compete - once in a while. It also demonstrates that teams with money can no longer buy the WSC for teams that are poorly managed.

 

While all of this proves that the race doesn't always go to the swiftest or the battle to the strongest, I still think that's the way to bet though.

[Dojji]

Which is fine. As long as cash poor teams can be in with a chance when their plan comes together, I'd call that good enough from a standpoint of territory.

[moonslav59]

But aren't you going back to the pre-revenue sharing and pre-Luxury Tax days with that statement? (I'll take your word for it because I'm too lazy to look it up this morning. )

 

However, I agree, and I think you can include Tampa Bay in that list also. It's proving that teams that are well managed at the FO level can compete - once in a while. It also demonstrates that teams with money can no longer buy the WSC for teams that are poorly managed.

 

While all of this proves that the race doesn't always go to the swiftest or the battle to the strongest, I still think that's the way to bet though.

 

Well, KC won last year vs the Mets. There was a luxury tax for a few years up to last year.

 

I think it started in 2003 and has only been breached by 6 teams. The Tigers, Angels & Giants only once.

 

The Dodgers have gone over 3 times (last 3 years).

 

The Red Sox have 7 times (04, 05, 06, 07, 10, 11 & 15.

 

The Yankees all 13 years.

 

The Sox paid over by $6M in 2007, but other than that time, no team except the Yanks and Dodgers have paid more than $4.2M in any given year.

 

The Yanks have paid over $11M every year at $34M in 2005. The Dodgers paid over by $44M last year. I think their tax was 50%, so they went over by $88M!