Debunking the 3 year window myth -- the Red Sox in 2020

[mvp 78]

A forward looking idea could be to look into the trade market for Bogaerts THIS offseason ... he is a good player, possibly very good. I am bullish - but with his FA being a year before Betts and Bradley ... if you think you can staff SS adequately, and get a large haul back, I can understand that.

 

Who would be the replacement? Lin? Marrero?

[Spudboy]

Ewwwwwww...

 

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. It's just an idea and one that could very easily be in the minds of DD and company.

[Spudboy]

Who would be the replacement? Lin? Marrero?

 

Or Nunez.

 

As uninspiring Bogey has been this year, going through the whole shortstop problem again would suck bigly.

 

If he comes back to raking at least part of the remaining season I bet no one will be talking about trading him.

[sk7326]

Who would be the replacement? Lin? Marrero?

 

I don't know - might not be internal (Cozart for a short deal) ... indeed a deal might not be there. I'd just be curious - what would Bogaerts with 2 years of control get you. Given the difficulties that others have noted adding young talent with CBA changes - do you proactively look at moving people if you are convinced he is not going to be a superstar. I am not advocating a deal - but it is worth making the calls. (O's should have done this with Machado before the deadline)

[mvp 78]

I don't know - might not be internal (Cozart for a short deal) ... indeed a deal might not be there. I'd just be curious - what would Bogaerts with 2 years of control get you. Given the difficulties that others have noted adding young talent with CBA changes - do you proactively look at moving people if you are convinced he is not going to be a superstar. I am not advocating a deal - but it is worth making the calls. (O's should have done this with Machado before the deadline)

 

If Cozart is cheap, it would make a little sense. You'd have a glove first guy at SS and would hope the increased defense offsets the drop in offensive production. He's basically Stephen Drew. If the Sox could get some value out of X in a trade (some minor league arms), it could be a smart move.

[Kimmi]

Henry's willingness to spend big has been a significant factor in our success. I'll never second guess his spending philosophy. We've been over or near the luxury tax every year he's been at the helm.

 

I do think he cares about our spending, even if it just for image sake. He probably doesn't want to be viewed as a winner just because he could out spend everyone else. It' likely more fulfilling to win as the 3rd to 6th highest paid team, but I'm just projecting my thought here.

 

The history is that we stay near the limit and have some sort of priority to avoid paying high luxury taxes. We finished in last place in 3 out of 4 years. If spending was not a factor, we'd have signed more than just Price. I'm operating under the assumption that we will stay near the limit, until I see otherwise.

 

I do think re-setting the tax this year will allow us to go over by a significant amount in 2018 and maybe even 2019, but I seriously doubt we go over the second penalty limit ($237M next year). I agree that going from the 28th to 38th pick is not a big factor, but that would be on top of a major tax once we reach the 50% level of taxation

 

I think we can field a very highly competitive team over the next two years by just going over the luxury tax limit by $19.9M and no more. Once we reach 2020, we'll likely be at the 50% tax bracket with some big financial decisions to be made. With a much more difficult system for rich teams to rebuild their farms, I'm guessing we hit some hard times by 2021. If Henry didn't go nutty after 3 last place finishes, I doubt he will after a nice 4 year stretch (2016-2019).

 

Good post.

 

Henry did go nutty after 3 last place finishes. He fired Ben, denounced sabermetrics, and threw the organization's previous philosophy out the window. He pretty much did a 180.

[Kimmi]

the strawman is strong in this one - so let me rephrase

 

The Red Sox have carried a large payroll - as they should. They have largely managed it well. Letting Betts walk at the age of 27 would not be a good use of payroll - and if you cite the tax as a reason not to make THAT decision, it is bad management. It is fair game for lots of other decisions. (8 figure closers, cough cough)

 

sk, that post was not directed at you, or anyone in particular. You are always reasonable in your posts.

 

I do not cite going over the tax as a reason not to sign Betts. I cite the risks of long term deals as the reason for not signing Betts.

 

I am 100% sure the team will go over the tax limit next year, which is why they worked so hard to stay under it this year. They are willing to spend. They have spent a lot during their tenure, including eating millions of dollars in bad contracts. This ownership is not 'cheap'. The bottom line, however, is that it is a business. While they are not cheap, they are also not reckless.

[OH FOY]

I could see 1 of the B's Traded before 2020. It starts with Pitching, if weak link there, have to do something.

[Slasher9]

Dombrowski was given the directive to 'reel it in' this trade deadline in hopes of beginning to repair some of the damage done to the farm. Henry feels the 3 year window. Are the 3 year window and subsequent cliff a foregone conclusion? Of course not, but there is definitely a lot of validity to the 3 year window.

 

this. and if he wasn't reigned in you could be sure the cliff would be more visible to the deniers. blowing up the farm is what DD does. i have stated this from day one.

perhaps after the 3 year window we can bring back Ben C to rebuild the farm.

[Slasher9]

There are sufficient finances - if there are not, it is by choice ... those guys under contract for their peak years also become potentially useful trade chips - and probably the actual best way to re-stock the farm if that becomes a real issue

 

well...except for the albatross named Price who will go down as the worst contract ever.

[sk7326]

well...except for the albatross named Price who will go down as the worst contract ever.

 

Pablo would like to have a word with you. The Price deal has been fairly unlucky so far.

[Fan_since_Boggs]

I keep forgetting about M.Hernandez! Thanks, Nietzsche. I like M.Hernandez. He will be 25 at the beginning of next season. 2b is his best position. Let's say the Red Sox resign Moreland on a one year deal while Chavis is in the minors learning to play 1b. The Red Sox also resign Nunez.

 

Against RHP (2018):

1b: Moreland

2b: Hernandez

SS: Bogaerts

3b: Devers

LF: Benintendi

CF: Bradley

RF: Betts

DH: Pedroia

super utility: E.Nunez

 

against LHP (2018):

1b: Ramirez (won't get enough bats for the option to vest!)

2b: Hernandez

SS: Bogaerts

3b: Devers

LF: Brentz

CF: Bradley

RF: Betts

DH: Pedroia

super utility: E.Nunez

 

I'm not platooning Nunez with Hernandez because Hernandez has always hit lefties in the minor leagues. I like this plan much better. We have a DH spot for Pedroia and didn't spend all that money on Hosmer. We also block Hanley's option. If Hanley acts up, you dump him later in the season and promote Chavis. By making such moves, the Red Sox will go into the following free agent market with more money to spend (the B.Harper and M.Machado free agency).

Edited August 10, 2017 by Fan_since_Boggs

[moonslav59]

Good post.

 

Henry did go nutty after 3 last place finishes. He fired Ben, denounced sabermetrics, and threw the organization's previous philosophy out the window. He pretty much did a 180.

 

I meant in terms of spending larger than before just because we were losing.

 

I'm addressing those that feel Henry will suddenly start okaying going way over the luxury limit after having gone 4 years straight with having a very competitive team (theoretically: 2016-2019), when he didn't "go nutty" in spending after finishing in last place in 3 of 4 seasons.

 

I do think with the tax re-set, we will see us going over next year by nearly $20M (but not over).

[moonslav59]

I keep forgetting about M.Hernandez! Thanks, Nietzsche. I like M.Hernandez. He will be 25 at the beginning of next season. 2b is his best position. Let's say the Red Sox resign Moreland on a one year deal while Chavis is in the minors learning to play 1b. The Red Sox also resign Nunez.

 

Against RHP (2018):

1b: Moreland

2b: Hernandez

SS: Bogaerts

3b: Devers

LF: Benintendi

CF: Bradley

RF: Betts

DH: Pedroia

super utility: E.Nunez

 

against LHP (2018):

1b: Ramirez (won't get enough bats for the option to vest!)

2b: Hernandez

SS: Bogaerts

3b: Devers

LF: Brentz

CF: Bradley

RF: Betts

DH: Pedroia

super utility: E.Nunez

 

I'm not platooning Nunez with Hernandez because Hernandez has always hit lefties in the minor leagues. I like this plan much better. We have a DH spot for Pedroia and didn't spend all that money on Hosmer. We also block Hanley's option. If Hanley acts up, you dump him later in the season and promote Chavis. By making such moves, the Red Sox will go into the following free agent market with more money to spend (the B.Harper and M.Machado free agency).

 

I think Nunez would start and Marco would be the IF utility guy. (We might keep Holt as the 4th OF'er, but he might actually be the 5th OF'er behind Nunez.)

[moonslav59]

Pablo would like to have a word with you. The Price deal has been fairly unlucky so far.

 

In my opinion, CC was the worst signing ever. 7 years and the guy flopped the first minute he stepped on the field.

 

We had to trade away AGon, which as it turned out wasn't so bad, just to get a team to take him and his salary off our hands.

[Slasher9]

If he'd take a 10 year deal this winter, I would. Roll in his arb years into the deal to lessen the luxury tax hit for his last 7 years.

 

$2750M/10 is tough to offer, but I'd be inclined to do it.

 

in.

[Slasher9]

In my opinion, CC was the worst signing ever. 7 years and the guy flopped the first minute he stepped on the field.

 

We had to trade away AGon, which as it turned out wasn't so bad, just to get a team to take him and his salary off our hands.

 

this would have been the worst ever if it wasnt for the trade to LA. we wont get that lucky with Price. Price will go down as the worst deal ever. surpassing the Arod deal as the worst ever. cc's doesnt count because 1 team didnt take it all in the ass. but price has stuck it in us and it aint coming out....

[Slasher9]

 

Then again, if ever there were a 30 year old pitcher to give a big contract to, it would be Price.

 

.

 

sorry. his track record of pressure games screamed "NO" to some of us. we would have been so much better off signed cueto instead. and by so much i mean a billion percent.

[Kimmi]

this. and if he wasn't reigned in you could be sure the cliff would be more visible to the deniers. blowing up the farm is what DD does. i have stated this from day one.

perhaps after the 3 year window we can bring back Ben C to rebuild the farm.

 

Evan Drellich had another nice article about the 'window' this morning. The following quote sums it up nicely:

 

The simple of act of trading future assets for the present is an endorsement of windows, in a basic way.

[sk7326]

In my opinion, CC was the worst signing ever. 7 years and the guy flopped the first minute he stepped on the field.

 

We had to trade away AGon, which as it turned out wasn't so bad, just to get a team to take him and his salary off our hands.

 

In terms of results for money, Sandoval is far and away the worst. In terms of worst idea, CC's re-signing is up there.

 

Gonzalez was a pretty good idea - he looked every bit that player early ... and to be fair to him, he had about 5 years of the deal where he was at least a good MLB 1B. A disappointment relative to salary - but not a horrific one.

 

As much as anything Gonzalez trade, while a dump - was really also giving the Dodgers some actual quality to absorb Beckett and Crawford's deal.

[Kimmi]

I meant in terms of spending larger than before just because we were losing.

 

I'm addressing those that feel Henry will suddenly start okaying going way over the luxury limit after having gone 4 years straight with having a very competitive team (theoretically: 2016-2019), when he didn't "go nutty" in spending after finishing in last place in 3 of 4 seasons.

 

I do think with the tax re-set, we will see us going over next year by nearly $20M (but not over).

 

Yeah, I got that you were talking in terms of spending larger. I just wanted to point out that Henry had indeed gone nutty. LOL

[sk7326]

Evan Drellich had another nice article about the 'window' this morning. The following quote sums it up nicely:

 

The simple of act of trading future assets for the present is an endorsement of windows, in a basic way.

 

My view is fairly simple - every chance you have to put up a flag, you gotta take it. It's why I cannot criticize Dombrowski's tour in Detroit. Ilitch wanted a winner at any cost - Dombrowski got him one. Yeah they did not get to the finish line, but as we know - a GM cannot do anything about that.

[Kimmi]

sorry. his track record of pressure games screamed "NO" to some of us. we would have been so much better off signed cueto instead. and by so much i mean a billion percent.

 

Well, I'm not a believer in the 'pressure track record', but I was hardly all in for Price. I had nothing against him as a pitcher, but that contract...

 

Just say no to big contracts!

 

And that includes one for Mookie, whom I love dearly.

[Kimmi]

My view is fairly simple - every chance you have to put up a flag, you gotta take it. It's why I cannot criticize Dombrowski's tour in Detroit. Ilitch wanted a winner at any cost - Dombrowski got him one. Yeah they did not get to the finish line, but as we know - a GM cannot do anything about that.

 

Without the guarantee of a championship, I don't think you take the chance at the expense of the long term. I think this team could have been competitive for the short term without sacrificing the long term.

[jacksonianmarch]

There is never a way to guarantee a title. Look at the Dodgers. They've been entirely dominant for the past few years and they haven't even made the world series. There are ways to stack the deck so to speak, which will allow you to maximize your chances, but there is never a guarantee that a short series will go your way

[moonslav59]

In terms of results for money, Sandoval is far and away the worst. In terms of worst idea, CC's re-signing is up there.

 

Gonzalez was a pretty good idea - he looked every bit that player early ... and to be fair to him, he had about 5 years of the deal where he was at least a good MLB 1B. A disappointment relative to salary - but not a horrific one.

 

As much as anything Gonzalez trade, while a dump - was really also giving the Dodgers some actual quality to absorb Beckett and Crawford's deal.

 

CC was not a "re-signing".

 

CC's contract was $142M/7 vs Pablo's $95M/5.

 

Pablo's signing occurred years after CC's, so salary inflation should be a factor.

 

They both sucked.

 

Yeah, the trade bailed us out, but when just looking at who we got and their performance for what amount of money, Crawford was the worst.

 

Maybe Price will be worse, but he already gave us one decent year- something CC never did.

[Kimmi]

There is never a way to guarantee a title. Look at the Dodgers. They've been entirely dominant for the past few years and they haven't even made the world series. There are ways to stack the deck so to speak, which will allow you to maximize your chances, but there is never a guarantee that a short series will go your way

 

Which is exactly why it's not a good idea to try to win now at any cost.

[Bellhorn04]

Which is exactly why it's not a good idea to try to win now at any cost.

 

There's so much uncertainty in the whole process. If Dombrowski doesn't trade for Sale maybe we're in third place right now and we don't even make the playoffs to get that chance. Nobody knew Price was going to be injured and Porcello was going to regress so much and our offense would score so many fewer runs. I think you were of the opinion that we didn't need Sale this year.

[sk7326]

CC was not a "re-signing".

 

CC's contract was $142M/7 vs Pablo's $95M/5.

 

Pablo's signing occurred years after CC's, so salary inflation should be a factor.

 

They both sucked.

 

Yeah, the trade bailed us out, but when just looking at who we got and their performance for what amount of money, Crawford was the worst.

 

Maybe Price will be worse, but he already gave us one decent year- something CC never did.

 

I misinterpreted the CC - since I think of the Yankees pitcher .. who of course was very much worth the original contract he got. (not the resign after he opted out)

[sk7326]

Which is exactly why it's not a good idea to try to win now at any cost.

 

There are 30 teams - contending is hard - so if you can get to the tournament you gotta do it. I think there are limits - but extending stars in their prime is not one of them. As Don Draper noted, "That's what the money's for!"