A Realistic View at 2018: Part I

[moonslav59]

Any contract a business can not afford is absurd. Stanton's contract would have been absurd for most franchises. Even the New York Yankees may well come to rue the day they agreed to pick it up.

 

If a contract is not absurd, because the player deserves that kind of money on the open market, it can be traded away for useful pieces.

 

Plus, they did not have to trade GS. They cut the $30M needed with other moves. They chose to trade away more than what they needed to do for two reasons:

 

1) To make more money for the new owners

 

2) To gather as many prospects as possible for extended future success.

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

The AAV of Stanton's contract for the Yankees is arguably a bargain at $22 million.

 

The absurd part is the length of the contract, which runs until 2027.

 

It's not absurd. Someone may sign JD to play to the same age GS's contract but without the prime years that come before.

 

[Bellhorn04]

The absurdity or non-absurdity of Stanton's contract will be judged by most people in the future based on what he does. Just like if David Price had won a Cy Young and led us to a championship there would be a much different opinion of his contract.

 

The risk factor is huge.

 

But if you're a big-market team like the Yanks and Sox you pretty much have to take some risks like that. Your fans demand it, and they ultimately pay the bills.

[Bellhorn04]

It's not absurd. Someone may sign JD to play to the same age GS's contract but without the prime years that come before.

 

 

Doesn't change the fact that a contract that long for a baseball player is absurd...or it's a debatable point at least.

[moonslav59]

Of course the risk factor is very high.

 

Of course Stanton's contract looks too long and too expensive, but if he had been a FA at the time he signed that deal, he'd have gotten as much or more than that. To me, that means it is not "absurd" despite it being an overpay.

 

He was 25 the first year of the 13 year deal. He'll have 8 years out of the 13 (62%) at ages 25-32. Most big FA signings are the opposite with 60-70% of the long term deals after age 32. Even the seasons between 33 and 35 should be productive. That makes it 11 out of 13 seasons (85%) between 25 and 35. There are really only 1-3 seasons that look like he might produce below his pay suggests he should.

 

I'd have no problem with the Sox having that contract with a 25 year old player.

 

I get the point about Miami not being able to afford his contract, but they knew when they offered it, he'd be traded at some point. It was part of the plan. The fact that Jeter & Co, panicked and took a low ball offer should not take away from the fact that the contract was very much in line with open market rates.

 

 

[moonslav59]

Doesn't change the fact that a contract that long for a baseball player is absurd...or it's a debatable point at least.

 

13 years would be absurd for a 29 or 30 year old- not 25. To me, the Pujols contract was absurd, even though that was just 10 years.

[oldtimer]

13 years would be absurd for a 29 or 30 year old- not 25. To me, the Pujols contract was absurd, even though that was just 10 years.

 

There was real doubt about Pujols real age when he was signed. Just one more reason that signing was stupid. I am friends with a guy who has worked in the Cardinals office for many years and he said they were just as happy he left.

[moonslav59]

There was real doubt about Pujols real age when he was signed. Just one more reason that signing was stupid. I am friends with a guy who has worked in the Cardinals office for many years and he said they were just as happy he left.

 

Compared to most FA contracts over 6 or 7 years, where most years are beyond 32 or 33 years old, Stanton's deal looks totally reasonable.

 

I brought up the Pujols' deal as an example of one of the worst, but most turn out bad to rotten.

 

Top 25 signings by total dollars (Not all free agent signings)

 

(Look at the ration of years beyond 32 or 33. Most do not have more years below age 31, like Stanton's does.)

 

$325M/13 Stanton (age 25 to 37)

$275M/10 ARod (32 to 41)

$252M/10 ARod (25 to age 34)

$248M/8 Miggy (33-40)

$240M/10 Pujols (32-41)

$240M/10 Cano (31-40)

$225M/10 Votto (30-39)

$217M/7 Price (30-36)

$215M/7 Kershaw (26-32)

$210M/7 Scherzer (30-36)

$207M/6 Greinke (32-37)

$189M/10 Jeter (27-36)

$184M/8 Mauer (28-35)

$184M/8 Heyward (26-33)

$180M/8 Teixeira (29-36)

$180M/7 Verlander (30-36)

$175M/7 Felix H. (27-33)

$175M/7 Strasburg (28-34)

$167M/9 Posey (26-34)

$161M/7 Sabathia (28-34)

$161M/7 Chris Davis (30-36)

$160M/8 Manny (29-36)

$160M/8 Kemp (27-34)

$158M/10 Tulo (26-35)

 

Others over 8+ years

$152M/8 Miggy (to 2015)

$142M/9 Helton (to 2011)

$138M/9 D Wright (to 2020)

$136M/8 A Soriano (to 2014)

$121M/8 Mike Hampton (to 2008)

$117M/9 Ken Griffey Jr (to 2008)

$110M/8 Pedroia (to 2021)

 

Note: if JD Martinez signs for 6 years, it would be from ages 30.5 to 35.5.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by moonslav59

[oldtimer]

Compared to most FA contracts over 6 or 7 years, where most years are beyond 32 or 33 years old, Stanton's deal looks totally reasonable.

 

I brought up the Pujols' deal as an example of one of the worst, but most turn out bad to rotten.

 

Top 25 signings by total dollars (Not all free agent signings)

 

(Look at the ration of years beyond 32 or 33. Most do not have more years below age 31, like Stanton's does.)

 

$325M/13 Stanton (age 25 to 37)

$275M/10 ARod (32 to 41)

$252M/10 ARod (25 to age 34)

$248M/8 Miggy (33-40)

$240M/10 Pujols (32-41)

$240M/10 Cano (31-40)

$225M/10 Votto (30-39)

$217M/7 Price (30-36)

$215M/7 Kershaw (26-32)

$210M/7 Scherzer (30-36)

$207M/6 Greinke (32-37)

$189M/10 Jeter (27-36)

$184M/8 Mauer (28-35)

$184M/8 Heyward (26-33)

$180M/8 Teixeira (29-36)

$180M/7 Verlander (30-36)

$175M/7 Felix H. (27-33)

$175M/7 Strasburg (28-34)

$167M/9 Posey (26-34)

$161M/7 Sabathia (28-34)

$161M/7 Chris Davis (30-36)

$160M/8 Manny (29-36)

$160M/8 Kemp (27-34)

$158M/10 Tulo (26-35)

 

Others over 8+ years

$152M/8 Miggy (to 2015)

$142M/9 Helton (to 2011)

$138M/9 D Wright (to 2020)

$136M/8 A Soriano (to 2014)

$121M/8 Mike Hampton (to 2008)

$117M/9 Ken Griffey Jr (to 2008)

$110M/8 Pedroia (to 2021)

 

Note: if JD Martinez signs for 6 years, it would be from ages 30.5 to 35.5.

 

 

 

 

 

If you look solely at the monetary side , each of these guys cost over $100 million over the years of their contract. Those costs have to be justified in terms of ticket sales, tv revenue, ad revenue, concessions and increased value of the franchise. Since the contractual cost is only part of the total cost of runnning the club, it all needs to be brought into balance. Most clubs are still making money but a deterioration in the main sources of revenue could indeed make these salaries a thing of the past. Owners need to stop the ridiculous overspending on some of these guys.

[S5Dewey]

If you look solely at the monetary side , each of these guys cost over $100 million over the years of their contract. Those costs have to be justified in terms of ticket sales, tv revenue, ad revenue, concessions and increased value of the franchise. Since the contractual cost is only part of the total cost of runnning the club, it all needs to be brought into balance. Most clubs are still making money but a deterioration in the main sources of revenue could indeed make these salaries a thing of the past. Owners need to stop the ridiculous overspending on some of these guys.

 

I agree, but I don't know what it will take to stop it. I see overspending on talent being much like spending big money on PED abusers. The owners don't like signing those guys but they know if they don't sign them some other owner will. So the cycle goes on...and on.. and on.

 

Just from a curiosity standpoint I would like to know how much money these teams make (or lose) in a year after all the revenue is in and all the bills are paid. I have a sense that's why they're privately owned - so they don't have to reveal that stuff to their shareholders. But.... I've been accused of being unduly cynical too.

[Bellhorn04]

The foundation of the baseball economy is fan interest. Attendance is going down. I don't know about other teams' TV ratings but I know NESN ratings are down.

 

At some point the gravy train has to hit the brakes.

[Bellhorn04]

We just may be starting to see the first signs of fiscal sanity this offseason...which I guess is why it's been so boring.

[Kimmi]

I think it's a bargain for his level of defense and moderate + offense.

 

Of course I am sure that someone will "disprove" my opinion with all types of WAR s***.

 

I also think the Sox are going to lose their Arb tussle with Betts.

 

I don't give a s*** what Arb estimates or WAR say, that kid is worth 10.5 mil all day long.

 

Why is Kelly worth 4 mil?

 

It's not really about how much JBJ, Betts, or Kelly are worth what they get paid. IMO, they're all more than worth it. It's just the way the system works.

 

I have no issue with Betts thinking he deserves more, but at the same time, I also have no issue with the team's $7.5 figure. It's a very fair offer for a 2nd year arb player, and a considerable raise over the $950,000 that he made last year.

[Kimmi]

Stanton's contract was not absurd, nor Gordon's.

 

The new ownership will meet up with the same issues of the old ones: lack of fans and viewership.

 

They should move the team to North Carolina and start over.

 

Stanton's contract is absurd, regardless of the low (relatively) AAV. Any 10 year contract is absurd, IMO. It doesn't matter if the player is mid 20 when he signs the contract.

[Kimmi]

JD's Potential for Falling off a Cliff

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/j-d-martinezs-potential-for-falling-off-a-cliff/

 

LOL

 

Is the irony of that title lost on everybody?

[Kimmi]

Pretty interesting analysis and certainly supports those of us who are suggesting 5 years as a maximum. When you think of his defense and injury history going past 5 years at $25 mil/year isn't warranted.

 

Five years at $25 mil/yr is already likely to be a bad contract. There's no sense in compounding the bad by tacking on more years.

[Kimmi]

The absurdity or non-absurdity of Stanton's contract will be judged by most people in the future based on what he does. Just like if David Price had won a Cy Young and led us to a championship there would be a much different opinion of his contract.

 

The risk factor is huge.

 

But if you're a big-market team like the Yanks and Sox you pretty much have to take some risks like that. Your fans demand it, and they ultimately pay the bills.

 

Well, fans need to stop demanding it because we should know by now how quickly and badly these contracts can turn. Start demanding a strong farm system, more home grown players, and shorter term contracts to '2nd tier' type players!

[Kimmi]

We just may be starting to see the first signs of fiscal sanity this offseason...which I guess is why it's been so boring.

 

Thank the stat geeks for that.

[Nick]

Cot's Baseball has updated Sox payroll using estimate of $9M for Betts. Our projected payroll is $204M, $7M over the limit without any other FA signing. Martinez offer will take us into the 12% surtax territory (on top of 20% for going over $197M).

 

Basically we have $33M to play with before hitting the 42.5% death tax. I don't see us offering more than $125M/5 year deal to Martinez. We'll need $8M for contingencies at trade deadline, assuming we sign Martinez for $25/yr deal.

 

It's imperative that we don't pick up Hanley's vested option for 2019. We will absolutely not extend Porcello after 2019. I can see Sox shopping him if a viable alternative surfaces in our farm system. It would also help if we don't have a need for Kimbrel in 2019 and beyond.

 

Basically we can use Hanley's money to sign Pom (his $8.5M for 2018 is already baked in, so it's a delta of say $11.5M to give him a $20M deal). That still leaves around $9M from Hanley's contract that can even go for Kimbrel. He's already making $13M.

 

Sale's new contract can come from the money we're paying Sandoval right now. That's $19M in savings plus what Chris is making right now to get him to $30M plus.

 

Luxury tax limit will jump to $206M in 2019 or $9M increase. That amount should cover much of the arbitration raises from 2018 to 2019.

 

Basically we're good through 2020, window of 3 years. Younger kids need to emerge over the next three years.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Nick

[moonslav59]

If you look solely at the monetary side , each of these guys cost over $100 million over the years of their contract. Those costs have to be justified in terms of ticket sales, tv revenue, ad revenue, concessions and increased value of the franchise. Since the contractual cost is only part of the total cost of runnning the club, it all needs to be brought into balance. Most clubs are still making money but a deterioration in the main sources of revenue could indeed make these salaries a thing of the past. Owners need to stop the ridiculous overspending on some of these guys.

 

Out of the top 11 long-term, mega contracts on my list, 8 began at age 30 or older and 4 began at age 32 or older. ARod's first contract, Kershaw's deal and Stanton's are the only ones beginning at age 25 to 26.

[moonslav59]

Cot's Baseball has updated Sox payroll using estimate of $9M for Betts. Our projected payroll is $204M, $7M over the limit without any other FA signing. Martinez offer will take us into the 12% surtax territory (on top of 20% for going over $197M).

 

Basically we have $33M to play with. I don't see us offering more than $125M/5 year deal to Martinez. We'll need $8M for contingencies at trade deadline, assuming we sign Martinez for $25/yr deal.

 

Well, we know now that Betts' cost will likely not be $9M. It will be either $7.5M or $10.5M.

 

Let's assume we go over the limit by $39M (just below the third tier limit). We pay 20% on the first $20M, which is $4M. We'd pay 32% on the next $19M, which is about $6.1M. In total, the tax alone would be about $10M.

 

[Nick]

Well, we know now that Betts' cost will likely not be $9M. It will be either $7.5M or $10.5M.

 

Let's assume we go over the limit by $39M (just below the third tier limit). We pay 20% on the first $20M, which is $4M. We'd pay 32% on the next $19M, which is about $6.1M. In total, the tax alone would be about $10M.

 

 

We already have an offer to Martinez. I'm sure DD has consulted with Henry about having to pay that $10M in penalty and he's received Henry's blessings.

[Spudboy]

Well, fans need to stop demanding it because we should know by now how quickly and badly these contracts can turn. Start demanding a strong farm system, more home grown players, and shorter term contracts to '2nd tier' type players!

 

But most fans ( in my opinion ) are not that sophisticated. They just see a big name with big output and think this is what we need. Hence big splash signings like Fatboy.

 

I don't agree with that thinking. I say act responsibly. It is a business and value should be a big part of the equation.

[moonslav59]

We already have an offer to Martinez. I'm sure DD has consulted with Henry about having to pay that $10M in penalty and he's received Henry's blessings.

 

Agreed. I'm almost certain, one way or another, we end up over the second penalty limit.

[moonslav59]

But most fans ( in my opinion ) are not that sophisticated. They just see a big name with big output and think this is what we need. Hence big splash signings like Fatboy.

 

I don't agree with that thinking. I say act responsibly. It is a business and value should be a big part of the equation.

 

Fans will also buy tickets and tune in when the team wins with a bunch of no-names, but selling season tickets in the winter is tied to big splash sign ings.

[moonslav59]

It's imperative that we don't pick up Hanley's vested option for 2019. We will absolutely not extend Porcello after 2019. I can see Sox shopping him if a viable alternative surfaces in our farm system. It would also help if we don't have a need for Kimbrel in 2019 and beyond.

 

Basically we can use Hanley's money to sign Pom (his $8.5M for 2018 is already baked in, so it's a delta of say $11.5M to give him a $20M deal). That still leaves around $9M from Hanley's contract that can even go for Kimbrel. He's already making $13M.

 

Sale's new contract can come from the money we're paying Sandoval right now. That's $19M in savings plus what Chris is making right now to get him to $30M plus.

 

Luxury tax limit will jump to $206M in 2019 or $9M increase. That amount should cover much of the arbitration raises from 2018 to 2019.

 

Basically we're good through 2020, window of 3 years. Younger kids need to emerge over the next three years.

 

The arb costs will rise significantly, so that will eat up a good chunk or HRam and Pablo's departing deals over the next few years.

 

Porcello's $20M may help, but if he does well over the next two years, replacing him for $20M might be difficult.

 

I agree the "window" goes to 2020 not 2019, but we also have to consider the tax rates go up every time you go over the limit in consecutive years. If we go over in 2019 and 2020 we'll be in the 3rd year penalty phase, and it will be very costly to Henry. A problem might arise, if Henry decides to reset after 2019, then 2020 might be outside the "window."

 

[baseball jones]

It's imperative that we don't pick up Hanley's vested option for 2019. We will absolutely not extend Porcello after 2019. I can see Sox shopping him if a viable alternative surfaces in our farm system. It would also help if we don't have a need for Kimbrel in 2019 and beyond.

 

Basically we can use Hanley's money to sign Pom (his $8.5M for 2018 is already baked in, so it's a delta of say $11.5M to give him a $20M deal). That still leaves around $9M from Hanley's contract that can even go for Kimbrel. He's already making $13M.

 

Sale's new contract can come from the money we're paying Sandoval right now. That's $19M in savings plus what Chris is making right now to get him to $30M plus.

 

Luxury tax limit will jump to $206M in 2019 or $9M increase. That amount should cover much of the arbitration raises from 2018 to 2019.

 

Basically we're good through 2020, window of 3 years. Younger kids need to emerge over the next three years.

 

The arb costs will rise significantly, so that will eat up a good chunk or HRam and Pablo's departing deals over the next few years.

 

Porcello's $20M may help, but if he does well over the next two years, replacing him for $20M might be difficult.

 

I agree the "window" goes to 2020 not 2019, but we also have to consider the tax rates go up every time you go over the limit in consecutive years. If we go over in 2019 and 2020 we'll be in the 3rd year penalty phase, and it will be very costly to Henry. A problem might arise, if Henry decides to reset after 2019, then 2020 might be outside the "window."

 

 

the only thing that worries me about the window is prices elbow.if he were coming back from tj surgery this spring i would feel more comfortable.i fear he just put off the inevitable.i hope its all for nothing and he comes back strong

[moonslav59]

the only thing that worries me about the window is prices elbow.if he were coming back from tj surgery this spring i would feel more comfortable.i fear he just put off the inevitable.i hope its all for nothing and he comes back strong

 

Well, if he has surgery, he may be recovered by 2019 or 2020.

[oldtimer]

Well, if he has surgery, he may be recovered by 2019 or 2020.

$30 million a year for multiple years so that we wouldn't have a starting pitcher. Shows how crazy things have gotten.

[Larry Cook]

Well, if he has surgery, he may be recovered by 2019 or 2020.

 

Don’t the Sox have insurance for when price’s elbow blows in late March and he misses the 2018 season?

 

While we get no cap relief, at least Henry can get reimbursed a few dollars.