New CBA...

[notin]

...apparently removed homevfield advantage in the World Series from being linked tovthe All Star game and instead now awards it to the team with the most wins!!

[Bellhorn04]

I have to say I'm impressed with what I read about the new luxury tax thresholds and rates. I see an attempt at some fiscal sanity there, without going overboard about it.

[Hugh2]

I'm hearing they decided against an international draft but for hard bonus caps against all teams. I was really hoping for at least one year for the Sox to go crazy in the international market to try and restock their farm system.

[oldtimer]

One item of note

 

 

Luxury tax threshold

Incremental increases from the current $189 million of 2014-16 to:

2017: $195 million

2018: $197 million

2019: $206 million

2020: $209 million

2021: $210 million

[Hugh2]

Of note, the team will start to lose it's young talent in the year 2020 when Bogaerts reaches FA, they will have an additional 20 million per annum to spend between here and there. The only people they will have under contract at that point are Price, and Pedroia (I'm assuming they won't pick up Sandovals option) Although they do stand to incur some hefty arbitration costs. Still, I think they money will be there for some extensions at some point.

[notin]

Were there any changes to the massively flawed Qualifying Offer system?

[a700hitter]

Now, the GMs can get on with the wheeling and dealing.

[moonslav59]

Were there any changes to the massively flawed Qualifying Offer system?

 

There are actually three categories of teams in assessing the loss of a pick. Revenue-sharing recipients would lose their third-highest selection (not necessarily a third-round choice). Revenue-sharing contributors would lose their second and fifth-highest selections and also sacrifice $1MM in international signing availability. And all other teams would stand to give up their second-highest pick along with $500K in international bonus funds.

In terms of compensation, an organization which loses a QO-declining player who signs for $50MM or more will pick up a draft choice that falls “after the first round.” If a QO-declining player inks for under $50MM with another organization, the draft compensation slides to “after competitive balance round B.” There’s a different set of rules for teams that are over the luxury tax line; any compensatory picks they receive will take place after the draft’s fourth round.

Players now will have ten days, instead of seven, to consider the offer.

[moonslav59]

From AP:

 

There’s a new league-minimum salary: it’ll be $535K next year, $545K in 2018, and $555K in 2019. Then, “cost-of-living increases” will provide further bumps in the final two years of the agreement. There are also some minor bumps in the MiLB minimum salary applicable to players making their second appearance on a 40-man roster.

In the draft, there’ll be some changes in the spread of slot values; details remain unknown, but it seems there’ll be a more gradual decline than the currently steep fall after the first few picks.

Teams that go $40MM over the luxury tax line will see their top draft pick fall by ten spots.

The initial international bonus pool will actually be $4.75MM.

The A’s slice of revenue sharing will go to 75%, then 50%, then 25% over the next three years before disappearing.

There will be some changes to the Joint Drug Agreement, including additional testing. Notably, players will not be able to accrue service time during any period they are suspended, which serves as a fairly significant additional deterrent. Finally, there’ll now be “biomarker testing for HGH.”

[moonslav59]

The minimum DL stint will now be ten days, per a report from Ronald Blum of the Associated Press. By making the DL more readily utilized, the rule could also increase the amount of player movement — as well as the value of optionable 40-man assets.

[mvp 78]

Of note, the team will start to lose it's young talent in the year 2020 when Bogaerts reaches FA, they will have an additional 20 million per annum to spend between here and there. The only people they will have under contract at that point are Price, and Pedroia (I'm assuming they won't pick up Sandovals option) Although they do stand to incur some hefty arbitration costs. Still, I think they money will be there for some extensions at some point.

 

As the "cap" increases, so will all of the contracts handed out. I don't think the cap going up $20M factors in whether they resign Bogaerts. It's more about how much they value him.

[Bellhorn04]

Some key points on the new luxury tax rules:

 

Exceeding the threshold the first time - 20% tax

Exceeding the threshold the second time - 30% tax

Exceeding the threshold the third time - 50% tax

Exceeding the threshold by 20 to 40 million - additional 12% tax on top of the above

Exceeding the threshold by 40 million or more - tax rate is up to 90% AND the team's top draft pick falls by 10 spots

[moonslav59]

Some key points on the new luxury tax rules:

 

Exceeding the threshold the first time - 20% tax

Exceeding the threshold the second time - 30% tax

Exceeding the threshold the third time - 50% tax

Exceeding the threshold by 20 to 40 million - additional 12% tax on top of the above

Exceeding the threshold by 40 million or more - tax rate is up to 90% AND the team's top draft pick falls by 10 spots

 

Do you know if these new rates apply to 2017?

 

We were over last year by almost $4M, so does that mean we get taxed 30% for going over in 2017?

 

That's actually not as bad as I thought. If we can stay under the $20M over penatly, we'd only pay about $6M in tax on $18M over.

 

So, adding the $10M we have, my guess is we could spend about $28-29M at a cost of $34-35M total (salary + tax).

 

The problem with going over is that for 2018, it would be our 3rd year and a 50% tax would kick in. We do lose $20M in Buch + Young, but if we're over by $19M, we're essentially at zero to spend in 2018, if we want to reset the tax rate.

[Nick]

Do you know if these new rates apply to 2017?

 

We were over last year by almost $4M, so does that mean we get taxed 30% for going over in 2017?

 

That's actually not as bad as I thought. If we can stay under the $20M over penatly, we'd only pay about $6M in tax on $18M over.

 

So, adding the $10M we have, my guess is we could spend about $28-29M at a cost of $34-35M total (salary + tax).

 

The problem with going over is that for 2018, it would be our 3rd year and a 50% tax would kick in. We do lose $20M in Buch + Young, but if we're over by $19M, we're essentially at zero to spend in 2018, if we want to reset the tax rate.

 

You can't have it all.....We did not gain much from Ortiz retiring. His $16M got ate up and then some buy expected increase in arbitration eligible players.

 

It maybe that in the future we live with a guy like Shaw while he's under team control. We gambled on Porcello and it turned out to be a wise investment. Spending $30M on Price, however, means we may need to live without Buchholtz and his $13M or use our farm system to trade for upgrade in the bull pen.

 

Even Betran's contract seems almost illogical at this point. I'm not a big fan of Pablo but I hope he comes back.

 

There's no point in trading guys like Moncada and Swihart. $1M per year keeps them on our roster for 2/3 years.

 

Betts is my favorite but can you spend another $30M on a player? And we haven't even discussed Xander.

 

How many $20M+ players can you have at the same time? I definitely do not want to pay $30M for a shortstop. No way.

 

Cheap lineup.. c Sandy/Vazquez 1B Travis 2B Pedy SS Hernandez 3B Moncada LF Beni CF Bradley RF Betts DH Devers Utility Swihart

Edited December 1, 2016 by Nick

[mvp 78]

You can't have it all.....We did not gain much from Ortiz retiring. His $16M got ate up and then some buy expected increase in arbitration eligible players.

 

It maybe that in the future we live with a guy like Shaw while he's under team control. We gambled on Porcello and it turned out to be a wise investment. Spending $30M on Price, however, means we may need to live without Buchholtz and his $13M or use our farm system to trade for upgrade in the bull pen.

 

Even Betran's contract seems almost illogical at this point. I'm not a big fan of Pablo but I hope he comes back.

 

There's no point in trading guys like Moncada and Swihart. $1M per year keeps them on our roster for 2/3 years.

 

Betts is my favorite but can you spend another $30M on a player? And we haven't even discussed Xander.

 

How many $20M+ players can you have at the same time? I definitely do not want to pay $30M for a shortstop. No way.

 

Cheap lineup.. c Sandy/Vazquez 1B Travis 2B Pedy SS Hernandez 3B Moncada LF Beni CF Bradley RF Betts DH Devers Utility Swihart

 

I think Devers is a better 3B than Moncada and it's not close. I also don't see them going cheap at both 1B AND 3B, maybe one or the other.

[moonslav59]

I think Devers is a better 3B than Moncada and it's not close. I also don't see them going cheap at both 1B AND 3B, maybe one or the other.

 

I'm losing confidence in Moncada as a 3Bman. I think his last chance at a position might be LF. I'd hate to have an athlete like him end up at DH. His best value to us may end up being in trade.

 

I like Devers at 3B too. They say his defense improved immensely this year. Great sign!

[S5Dewey]

I'm losing confidence in Moncada as a 3Bman. I think his last chance at a position might be LF. I'd hate to have an athlete like him end up at DH. His best value to us may end up being in trade.

 

 

What have you heard about Moncada at 3B that you don't like? Is it his defense or his offense? He could be an upgrade over what we had last year at 3B without being mentioned in the same breath as Machado.

 

This is that "embarrassment of riches" thing again that I mentioned earlier. They only allow one LF'er out there at a time and we currently have two of them (including Young). Since JBJ is currently in his first arbitration year and is GG quality he's cheap for what we're getting. Moving him so we can put someone who's not as talented in his place makes no sense. The only way it makes sense is to someone who believes Moncada > Benintenti and Benintendi > Bradley, and I ain't buyin' it, even with Beni's SSS.

[moonslav59]

His defense.

 

I'm not concerned that much with his high K rate.

 

I think he will be an .800+ MLB hitter- probably .850+.

[moonslav59]

Moving him so we can put someone who's not as talented in his place makes no sense. The only way it makes sense is to someone who believes Moncada > Benintenti and Benintendi > Bradley, and I ain't buyin' it, even with Beni's SSS.

 

Dewey, you know me; I love defense, but I also know other GMs do as well.

 

I would never trade JBJ, unless the return was great.... like Quintana.

 

I think Moncada's best place might be in LF or with the CWS.

 

[S5Dewey]

Moving him so we can put someone who's not as talented in his place makes no sense. The only way it makes sense is to someone who believes Moncada > Benintenti and Benintendi > Bradley, and I ain't buyin' it, even with Beni's SSS.

 

Dewey, you know me; I love defense, but I also know other GMs do as well.

 

I would never trade JBJ, unless the return was great.... like Quintana.

 

I think Moncada's best place might be in LF or with the CWS.

 

 

See, I'd have no objection to his playing LF or even 3B if he's going to be an .800 - .850 guy. I've always been a 'solid up the middle' guy and willing to sacrifice a little defense at the corner positions to get the power if necessary. That's where I think we are with Hanley. I don't see any GG's in Hanley's future but he can be a hitting machine. If Moncado can be Hanley at the other corner I'll live with his defense, assuming it's no worse than Shaw's. And realistically, if Moncado's defense is as good as Travis Shaw's, Moncado would be an upgrade at 3B.

 

WARNING. BLASPHEMY AHEAD!

- And furthermore, if Moncado can play LF reasonably well I wouldn't object to making Beni the centerpiece in a trade for a #1/#2 pitcher.

 

However, I wouldn't want to make that switch without seeing Moncado out there first. I'm not a fan of a player's learning on the fly!

[oldtimer]

The new CBA may well backfire on the players as teams like the Red Sox will be hesitant to pay a big luxury tax on FA's. FA's like Encarnacion with his expensive long term contract will find themselves taking less or with no place to go.

[Bellhorn04]

The new CBA may well backfire on the players as teams like the Red Sox will be hesitant to pay a big luxury tax on FA's. FA's like Encarnacion with his expensive long term contract will find themselves taking less or with no place to go.

 

The new CBA is not really that punitive. The basic threshold will increase from 195 million in 2017 to 210 million in 2020.

 

You only really get whacked if you go 40 million over the threshold. So there's still plenty of money available to be spent.

[moonslav59]

The new CBA is not really that punitive. The basic threshold will increase from 195 million in 2017 to 210 million in 2020.

 

You only really get whacked if you go 40 million over the threshold. So there's still plenty of money available to be spent.

 

Going over by $20M adds 12% to the tax. Assuming we go over by $20M this year, our tax would be 42% (30 for second year plus 12 for going $20M over). While 42% might not seem too punitive, watch what happens next year:

 

If we are $20M over this year, and we lose $20M in salary from Buch and Young, we're still over the limit before signing anyone. The rate next year would go to 50%. With arb raises and more signings, going over by $20M again would be a 62% tax (50% for the thrid year + 12% for going over $20M).

 

I think the Sox will have to at least stay under $20M for 2018...maybe even 2017.

 

Since we're just $10M from the limit now, we are pretty tight, if we want to sign a DH and 2 quality RP'ers for under $30M combined. We also may be restricted at the deadline, if we are close to $20M over by then..

Edited December 1, 2016 by moonslav59

[Bellhorn04]

Going over by $20M adds 12% to the tax. Assuming we go over by $20M this year, our tax would be 42% (30 for second year plus 12 for going $20M over). While 42% might not seem too punitive, watch what happens next year:

 

If we are $20M over this year, and we lose $20M in salary from Buch and Young, we're still over the limit before signing anyone. The rate next year would go to 50%. With arb raises and more signings, going over by $20M again would be a 62% tax (50% for the thrid year + 12% for going over $20M).

 

I think the Sox will have to at least stay under $20M for 2018...maybe even 2017.

 

Since we're just $10M from the limit now, we are pretty tight, if we want to sign a DH and 2 quality RP'ers for under $30M combined. We also may be restricted at the deadline, if we are close to $20M over by then..

 

I agree that the fiscal situation is tight. I don't think the new rules change things all that much for the Sox, because I don't think they were ever planning to send their payroll through the roof.

[moonslav59]

I agree that the fiscal situation is tight. I don't think the new rules change things all that much for the Sox, because I don't think they were ever planning to send their payroll through the roof.

 

Agreed, but I bet they were hoping for maybe a $202M limit this year and $210 by 2018.

[moonslav59]

If we go relatively light by signing Beltran for $19M x 2 and then 2 RP'ers for $5M each, we'll be over the limit by $19M. That leaves little room for mid-season additions and staying under the $20M over penalty.

[Kimmi]

...apparently removed homevfield advantage in the World Series from being linked tovthe All Star game and instead now awards it to the team with the most wins!!

 

Not that home field advantage means that much, but thank goodness some people finally came to their senses. Having the World Series HFA determined by the All Star game was ridiculous.

[Kimmi]

I have to say I'm impressed with what I read about the new luxury tax thresholds and rates. I see an attempt at some fiscal sanity there, without going overboard about it.

 

Agreed.

[moonslav59]

Not that home field advantage means that much, but thank goodness some people finally came to their senses. Having the World Series HFA determined by the All Star game was ridiculous.

 

Yea, but the AL always won!

[notin]

There are actually three categories of teams in assessing the loss of a pick. Revenue-sharing recipients would lose their third-highest selection (not necessarily a third-round choice). Revenue-sharing contributors would lose their second and fifth-highest selections and also sacrifice $1MM in international signing availability. And all other teams would stand to give up their second-highest pick along with $500K in international bonus funds.

In terms of compensation, an organization which loses a QO-declining player who signs for $50MM or more will pick up a draft choice that falls “after the first round.” If a QO-declining player inks for under $50MM with another organization, the draft compensation slides to “after competitive balance round B.” There’s a different set of rules for teams that are over the luxury tax line; any compensatory picks they receive will take place after the draft’s fourth round.

Players now will have ten days, instead of seven, to consider the offer.

 

Oh good. They decided to make it even more complicated.