And the off season begins (2018-19)

[kenmeister]

What 2018 pitching prospect fruit was plucked? Am I missing something?

 

2018 gave us nothing from the farm.

 

2019 might give us Chavis and Quiroz.

 

Well, Johnson got a more prominent role, and if he's allowed to pitch more than 4 innings I hope he could blossom. Velazquez is from Mexico rather than "the farm" but he's essentially a new arm to the team, as is Brasier. I don't know the story of how we acquired Brasier, but presumably we traded pieces from the farm to get him? Hopefully all 3 of Johnson, Velazquez, and Brasier are under team control for a while.

[jacksonianmarch]

Velasquez turns 30 at th end of the month. Brazier is 31. Both were minor league free agents. Johnson’s HR rate was ridiculous and led to his 0.3 WAR, which effectively makes him ultimately replaceable. Of the three, only Brasier has the stuff to make waves in 2019

[moonslav59]

Well, Johnson got a more prominent role, and if he's allowed to pitch more than 4 innings I hope he could blossom. Velazquez is from Mexico rather than "the farm" but he's essentially a new arm to the team, as is Brasier. I don't know the story of how we acquired Brasier, but presumably we traded pieces from the farm to get him? Hopefully all 3 of Johnson, Velazquez, and Brasier are under team control for a while.

 

Brasier was signed as a free agent. He was playing in Japan before. He was not a prospect and is 31.

 

Velazquez was signed as an international FA and turns 30 in a few days. He also pitched for us last year, beginning in May. He's not my idea of a prospect, but maybe he was officially.

 

Johnson turns 28 in less than a month. He pitched a little for us in 2015, and then he had some health and emotional issues. He scattered some playing time in 2017 across 4 different months. I don't really consider him a prospect, but he did give us something from the farm.

 

Maybe "no fruit" is not a good way to put it, but this kind of prospect infusion is not what we will need in the next few years.

 

To keep most of our stars, we will need to balance the roster (and budget) with some low cost players that are not drags on the team. We need some farm players who can give us some jolts- like Devers and Beni did last year. I'm not seeing that level of prospect in sight right now, but I will continue to hope one or two step it up next year. I hoped for the same thing this year, but didn't really see it. Some took some steps up, but nobody grabbed national attention.

[sk7326]

Pinching pennies to reset the luxury tax, yes.

 

Pinching pennies on the grander scale, no.

 

I think they will try at some point if the opportunity pops up ... but they also realize they have a special opportunity with a core that frankly every farm system in the league is trying to get to.

[S5Dewey]

While we sit here agonizing over an impending cliff we should also recognize that the game is rigged against teams like the Sox. MLB wants more parity within the league and they're doing everything they can to achieve it through Revenue Sharing, the Competitive Balance Tax (the title of which should tell you the goal of the tax) and the restriction on International signings.

 

While the Sox have ownership that most fans of other teams would love to have, even our ownership can't stop the tide of "parity". It's inevitable that the Sox are going to have some down years in the future because MLB is altering the rules to force it to happen.

 

IMO the Sox are riding the crest of the wave in 2018 & 2019 and should make the best of it. Then we as fans need to be "emotionally prepared" for a downslide of a couple of years. I don't see this team falling off a cliff. Rather I see it as finishing 3rd or 4th in the division while the team reloads. That's exactly what MLB wants and they're going to keep altering the taxes and the rules until they get it.

 

'The good news' (as I like to put it) is that as long as we have JH & Co. at the helm we're going to be a part of the cycle of good-to-mediocre-to-good ad infinitum rather than being part of a cycle of weak-to-mediocre-to weak, which is where teams without JH's type of leadership will be.

 

But.. that's just my opinion. What do I know?

[kenmeister]

I suppose Jalen Beeks could/would have been the farm system’s contribution for 2018, but we flipped him into Nathan Eovaldi. Which is why it would be really nice if we resign Eovaldi. It will make it ‘seem’ like we didn’t trade a guy with 6 years of control away for a half-year rental.

[Bellhorn04]

While we sit here agonizing over an impending cliff we should also recognize that the game is rigged against teams like the Sox. MLB wants more parity within the league and they're doing everything they can to achieve it through Revenue Sharing, the Competitive Balance Tax (the title of which should tell you the goal of the tax) and the restriction on International signings.

 

While the Sox have ownership that most fans of other teams would love to have, even our ownership can't stop the tide of "parity". It's inevitable that the Sox are going to have some down years in the future because MLB is altering the rules to force it to happen.

 

IMO the Sox are riding the crest of the wave in 2018 & 2019 and should make the best of it. Then we as fans need to be "emotionally prepared" for a downslide of a couple of years. I don't see this team falling off a cliff. Rather I see it as finishing 3rd or 4th in the division while the team reloads. That's exactly what MLB wants and they're going to keep altering the taxes and the rules until they get it.

 

'The good news' (as I like to put it) is that as long as we have JH & Co. at the helm we're going to be a part of the cycle of good-to-mediocre-to-good ad infinitum rather than being part of a cycle of weak-to-mediocre-to weak, which is where teams without JH's type of leadership will be.

 

But.. that's just my opinion. What do I know?

 

Your opinion on this is about the same as mine. So it's a knowledgeable and smart one.

[Bellhorn04]

I suppose Jalen Beeks could/would have been the farm system’s contribution for 2018, but we flipped him into Nathan Eovaldi. Which is why it would be really nice if we resign Eovaldi. It will make it ‘seem’ like we didn’t trade a guy with 6 years of control away for a half-year rental.

 

Excellent point ken. The farm did indeed bear fruit there.

[moonslav59]

Excellent point ken. The farm did indeed bear fruit there.

 

I guess the TB GM loves ugly fruit.

[Dojji]

I'm really not worried at all about Jar Jar Beeks. Once we got rid of him we were able to put Brian Johnson out there and Johnson was much better. it's not like Beeks had worldbeating stuff, he's a project for the Rays right now and I wish them all the luck in the world.

[moonslav59]

If our farm can keep producing prospects good enough for other GMs to trade the Eovaldi's, Pearce's and Nunez's of the league every summer, then I guess one could claim our system is bearing fruit, but I'm thinking more in terms of getting an infusion of young talent that is at pre-arb costs, so we can balance out the big contracts we will need to give our soon-to-be free agents.

[notin]

Beeks was no loss. The problem with the Sox farm is an abundance of pitchers like Beeks and a dearth of better ones... Edited November 14, 2018 by notin

[Slasher9]

2018 yielded no fruit.

 

well....except for that banner and parade......

[Slasher9]

I caught your comment earlier about finding it hard to understand how some people still think that we will be able to rebuild our farm in just 2 years - such a short time. I am that guy who does not worry at all about this team being able to compete with or without our band of superstars moving forward. I am sure that you are as tired of me telling you that I still have a great deal of faith in our ownership and management, as I am of hearing from you and yes some others about how unrealistic people like me are. We just all need to face the reality that we are soon to be screwed. I'm not buying it. Now once again I'll be asked to support my feelings and hopes with some kind of proof - I won't. Oh and by the way, anyone who knows me, knows full well that I don't think that this club is going to be pinching a pennies soon.

 

the cliff is coming. thankfully we got a parade this year so i am ok with it. JH will reset in the very near future and it will cause us to lose a couple/few players that we consider "ours"....

[Slasher9]

While we sit here agonizing over an impending cliff we should also recognize that the game is rigged against teams like the Sox. MLB wants more parity within the league and they're doing everything they can to achieve it through Revenue Sharing, the Competitive Balance Tax (the title of which should tell you the goal of the tax) and the restriction on International signings.

 

While the Sox have ownership that most fans of other teams would love to have, even our ownership can't stop the tide of "parity". It's inevitable that the Sox are going to have some down years in the future because MLB is altering the rules to force it to happen.

 

IMO the Sox are riding the crest of the wave in 2018 & 2019 and should make the best of it. Then we as fans need to be "emotionally prepared" for a downslide of a couple of years. I don't see this team falling off a cliff. Rather I see it as finishing 3rd or 4th in the division while the team reloads. That's exactly what MLB wants and they're going to keep altering the taxes and the rules until they get it.

 

'The good news' (as I like to put it) is that as long as we have JH & Co. at the helm we're going to be a part of the cycle of good-to-mediocre-to-good ad infinitum rather than being part of a cycle of weak-to-mediocre-to weak, which is where teams without JH's type of leadership will be.

 

But.. that's just my opinion. What do I know?

 

damn good post right here.

[sk7326]

If our farm can keep producing prospects good enough for other GMs to trade the Eovaldi's, Pearce's and Nunez's of the league every summer, then I guess one could claim our system is bearing fruit, but I'm thinking more in terms of getting an infusion of young talent that is at pre-arb costs, so we can balance out the big contracts we will need to give our soon-to-be free agents.

 

I'll worry about that when ownership does.

[sk7326]

While we sit here agonizing over an impending cliff we should also recognize that the game is rigged against teams like the Sox. MLB wants more parity within the league and they're doing everything they can to achieve it through Revenue Sharing, the Competitive Balance Tax (the title of which should tell you the goal of the tax) and the restriction on International signings.

 

While the Sox have ownership that most fans of other teams would love to have, even our ownership can't stop the tide of "parity". It's inevitable that the Sox are going to have some down years in the future because MLB is altering the rules to force it to happen.

 

IMO the Sox are riding the crest of the wave in 2018 & 2019 and should make the best of it. Then we as fans need to be "emotionally prepared" for a downslide of a couple of years. I don't see this team falling off a cliff. Rather I see it as finishing 3rd or 4th in the division while the team reloads. That's exactly what MLB wants and they're going to keep altering the taxes and the rules until they get it.

 

'The good news' (as I like to put it) is that as long as we have JH & Co. at the helm we're going to be a part of the cycle of good-to-mediocre-to-good ad infinitum rather than being part of a cycle of weak-to-mediocre-to weak, which is where teams without JH's type of leadership will be.

 

But.. that's just my opinion. What do I know?

 

They don't want parity - they want money. They want to curb spending on players, which is why they are capping these things. There is some secondary consideration of competitive balance, but that is more for the marketing than anything.

 

You are right that things can be harder. At the same time, the penalties MLB has put on spending are only somewhat powerful. The surcharges can add up - you'll have to see what ownership will be willing to swallow - but the draft pick penalties are basically zero. (10 draft slots for a good team does not alter the value of the pick much at all)

[Nick]

How much is playing 14 additional games worth to the Red Sox? Not to the players, but to the team?

 

Few years back there was an article about what it meant to the Yankees financially to get into the playoffs. The gist was it was worth another $30M or so. I was thinking at the time that would pay for FA signing for one year. Maybe I was just day dreaming.

 

Any idea?

[SoxnCycles]

They don't want parity - they want money. They want to curb spending on players, which is why they are capping these things. There is some secondary consideration of competitive balance, but that is more for the marketing than anything.

 

You are right that things can be harder. At the same time, the penalties MLB has put on spending are only somewhat powerful. The surcharges can add up - you'll have to see what ownership will be willing to swallow - but the draft pick penalties are basically zero. (10 draft slots for a good team does not alter the value of the pick much at all)

 

Yup, "parity" is the reason they give to the public for luxury tax limits.

Limiting FA contracts is the real reason.

If the the players union was as weak as they are in the NFL, there would be a hard cap.

[sk7326]

How much is playing 14 additional games worth to the Red Sox? Not to the players, but to the team?

 

Few years back there was an article about what it meant to the Yankees financially to get into the playoffs. The gist was it was worth another $30M or so. I was thinking at the time that would pay for FA signing for one year. Maybe I was just day dreaming.

 

Any idea?

 

Boston got 6 extra home dates out of the postseason - that is a lot of money. Now - the team probably does not keep as much percentage-wise (the league at-large gets some cut) but the pie (on a per date basis) is much bigger ... and the Sox still keep on the game-day revenue (concessions and so forth)

[moonslav59]

I'll worry about that when ownership does.

 

I'm not "agonizing" over it, like Dewey implied, but it does concern me.

 

Hey, we got a ring and might again next year; I'm in heaven.

 

The small part of me worry about 2020 or 2021 in way down my list of things I think about.

[notin]

They don't want parity - they want money. They want to curb spending on players, which is why they are capping these things. There is some secondary consideration of competitive balance, but that is more for the marketing than anything.

 

You are right that things can be harder. At the same time, the penalties MLB has put on spending are only somewhat powerful. The surcharges can add up - you'll have to see what ownership will be willing to swallow - but the draft pick penalties are basically zero. (10 draft slots for a good team does not alter the value of the pick much at all)

 

Money is always the primary reason, but any parity they get is an added bonus. It’s good for MLB to have the fans in San Diego or Milwaukee or Minnesota interested in baseball once in a while...

[sk7326]

Money is always the primary reason, but any parity they get is an added bonus. It’s good for MLB to have the fans in San Diego or Milwaukee or Minnesota interested in baseball once in a while...

 

Very much so - but it is a false pretext. These things don't really impact parity meaningfully.

[moonslav59]

Money is always the primary reason, but any parity they get is an added bonus. It’s good for MLB to have the fans in San Diego or Milwaukee or Minnesota interested in baseball once in a while...

 

I agree, but let that start after 2019...

 

LOL.

[oldtimer]

We very well might reset. You are not the only person that has gone on about how much all of these things are going to cost. How many players we will or will not be able to sign. If I am being unrealistic in my thinking, that is just fine. I absolutely believe and have faith in the fact that the guys that are currently in charge know what they are doing and I don't think that their only thought is to get through next year. There will likely be many things that neither you nor anyone else has predicted that will occur before and during our doomsday year.

I have mentioned this before also but when you mention JH spending like he has never spent before, we have over 70 million dollars tied up in players that did not help us this year. Take that out of that budget and things don't looks so bad.

After 2020, yup our team may look very different. Actually it obviously will. I will also add that as much as I like this team, most of them are probably replaceable. Maybe not with the same level of competence but replaceable. Don't take this the wrong way because I certainly am no fan of Bill James, I actually think that he is a creep, but with respect to players being replaceable to a certain extent I think he has a point. I also think that we will get some help from our farm system.

 

I'm with you on this. DD may make moves none of us are talking about. We are weak at RP, second, could improve at catcher and will definitely need starting pitching by 2020. It doesn't look like we can fill those needs from within, so look for DD to address them in a way that will be benficial for the club. So far he has done very well and one would hope that will continue.

[S5Dewey]

Very much so - but it is a false pretext. These things don't really impact parity meaningfully.

 

:confused:

Of course the taxes and rule changes affect parity.

 

Revenue sharing is what allows the teams with poorer attendance and less lucrative TV deals to remain competitive. Or at least it should although some owners have been accused of 'tanking', not acquiring talent, and instead pocketing the money. IIRC MLB is already looking into that.

 

The "Competitive Balance Tax" is exactly that. A tax on teams with higher salaries designed to ensure that as many teams as possible are competitive. They couldn't have said it any plainer than they did when they called it a Competitive Balance Tax. It's a tax designed to balance competition.

The thinking is that if MLB can put a huge disincentive on a team's intent to spend big (a CBT) then the team won't sign multiple free agents because paying those FA's plus the indexed tax will cut into the profits of the team. "Follow the money".

 

Limiting the money that can be spent on International signings (as well as slotting draft picks) is, again, designed to prevent the richer teams from having an "unfair" financial advantage over the poorer teams by putting a cap on what they can pay International players and draft picks. Nearly everything that's being done is being done to penalize the teams with higher revenue streams and reward the teams with lower revenue streams in the interest of parity.

 

The argument can certainly be made that it's not working (Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc.) but that doesn't mean that MLB is done trying. MLB wants to keep fans in every city believing that their team has a legitimate chance to win the WS so they will continue to put their fannies in the seats and buy the overpriced beer. Look for more and more and more taxes and restrictions until it becomes fiscally prohibitive for teams to develop even a minor "dynasty'.

 

The race to mediocrity is on!

[S5Dewey]

And BTW, I'm not saying it's bad for baseball. I'm just saying that's the way it is.

[Bellhorn04]

:confused:

Of course the taxes and rule changes affect parity.

 

Revenue sharing is what allows the teams with poorer attendance and less lucrative TV deals to remain competitive. Or at least it should although some owners have been accused of 'tanking', not acquiring talent, and instead pocketing the money. IIRC MLB is already looking into that.

 

The "Competitive Balance Tax" is exactly that. A tax on teams with higher salaries designed to ensure that as many teams as possible are competitive. They couldn't have said it any plainer than they did when they called it a Competitive Balance Tax. It's a tax designed to balance competition.

The thinking is that if MLB can put a huge disincentive on a team's intent to spend big (a CBT) then the team won't sign multiple free agents because paying those FA's plus the indexed tax will cut into the profits of the team. "Follow the money".

 

Limiting the money that can be spent on International signings (as well as slotting draft picks) is, again, designed to prevent the richer teams from having an "unfair" financial advantage over the poorer teams by putting a cap on what they can pay International players and draft picks. Nearly everything that's being done is being done to penalize the teams with higher revenue streams and reward the teams with lower revenue streams in the interest of parity.

 

The argument can certainly be made that it's not working (Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc.) but that doesn't mean that MLB is done trying. MLB wants to keep fans in every city believing that their team has a legitimate chance to win the WS so they will continue to put their fannies in the seats and buy the overpriced beer. Look for more and more and more taxes and restrictions until it becomes fiscally prohibitive for teams to develop even a minor "dynasty'.

 

The race to mediocrity is on!

 

Unfortunately what we saw in 2018 wasn't parity, but teams either trying to contend or trying to suck. Two teams that tanked hard and then won the World Series a few years later (Cubs, Astros) probably had something to do with that.

[kenmeister]

Money is always the primary reason, but any parity they get is an added bonus. It’s good for MLB to have the fans in San Diego or Milwaukee or Minnesota interested in baseball once in a while...

 

Speaking of which, I can't believe that the Kansas City Royals actually won it all in 2015. I can't name a single player on that team.

[notin]

Unfortunately what we saw in 2018 wasn't parity, but teams either trying to contend or trying to suck. Two teams that tanked hard and then won the World Series a few years later (Cubs, Astros) probably had something to do with that.

 

And if MLB put no restrictions on payroll and international signing bonuses, would baseball be any better if the more financially viable teams like New York and LA set up training camps in the Dominican Republic and Cuba and South Korea and every global baseball hotbed in order to sign every 15yo with even a glimmer of talent?