And the off season begins (2018-19)

[Fisk]

I'm pretty sure they will be taking all that into consideration. It certainly seems unlikely they'll be able to retain both Sale and Porcello if they do sign Eovaldi, with Price already on the books.

 

The thing is we have a small window. If we don't sign Eovaldi, presumably we have to sign another starter instead, and the options don't look that great.

 

Exactly you are not going to get a pitcher with Eovaldi’s talent for 15-16 million a year, his injury history is a risk, but it’s also a risk in signing any pitcher.

[Fisk]

I get the 2019 argument, but signing Eovaldi will likely cause us to lose Porcello or Sale. I don't see it as a "hedge". It's a replacement.

 

 

We also don’t know what ownership thinks the next cba agreement will be, because of this they might not be thinking of resetting.

My guess is the players realized how short changed they were in the last agreement and terms will be more favorable for them, which should benefit the big market teams

[cp176]

Porcello turns 30 this month. He has a long history of durability and dependability. At this age and over the next 2-4 years, he is still capable of having his best career year.

 

Eovaldi turns 29 in February. He's about 15 months younger than Porcello. He's had one season with more than 154 innings. He's had 2 TJ surgeries. I'll agree, he has nastier stuff than Porcello, and in that sense, one can logically argue he has higher upside, but even this year, his WHIP was 1.278.

 

It seems to me, that his short playoff brilliance is being looked upon as what we can expect for 190 innings x 4 years. I think that is a big leap of faith. Expecting Porcello to continue being steady Rick deserves more faith.

 

Look, maybe we can keep both (and let Sale go), but somebody will have to go, if we bring back Eovaldi for 3+ years.

 

 

Well a good arguement but for all of the times I have heard people state the obvious, that Eovaldi hasn't pitched many innings. and that he has had two tj surgeries and that wisdom says that he won't hold up, I think that that is a fair opinion. What I would add is that no one knows. His arm has been rebuilt and he has been given a clean bill of health. I think that it is also likely that he will remain healthy and is on the verge of doing something special moving ahead. It really is a betting man's game I guess but if I had to bet which is more likely, another cy out of Porcello or great production out of Eovaldi as we go along, I would take Eovaldi's chances everyday on this one. I love Porcello but even the stat lovers I think would be willing to admit that his Cy Young year looked just a bit like an aberration. My guess is that it is likely that they both wind up playing for us. I'm really not sure that JH worries about his Red Sox budget as much as you do! lol

[Kimmi]

Everyone's window is getting smaller now, I think. We used to talk about the 6 years of cheap control. Well, Mookie is expected to make about 19 million this year and I would expect it'll be 25 million or so in his final arb year. That's not exactly cheap in my books. (Not suggesting he doesn't deserve it, obviously.)

 

Arb salaries are getting ridiculous, no doubt.

 

One thing about the Astros though is that they still have a top farm system.

[Kimmi]

I have said before and continue to believe we should adhere to a policy where the length of contract is based on the age of the player and also the position he plays. Seven years maximum fpr a guy of 27 or below. Five years for a guy turning 30 and 3 years for a guy of 32. Beyond that age 1 or two years maximum. In the case of pitchers, the risk seems higher, therefore the contract length should reflect that. I didn't like Price's contract, not because of who he was, but the general idea of giving a really long term contract to a guy approaching 30 at the time.

 

The general manager still has to fill the roster and one would hope do so with competitive players. I think most of us believe that if you take risks,some will pay off and some will be busts. We had the Thornburn and Smith experiences on the downside. The other consideration is you have to be competitive to fill the roster with good players. Being smart about it is helpful is well.

 

In the case of Eovaldi, he has shown a lot of value, albeit for a short period. We will at least have to compete with Houston to sign him. Going beyond 3 years to 4 for contract length might be necessary to land him and it looks like he could be a good fit for us. I would go the 4 years but definitely not beyond that. Kimbrel wants 6 years as an arguing position and is probably willing to accept 5. Big bucks for a closer who may be past his prime with a 5 year term is tough to swallow. I would definitely look elsewhere for a closer if Kimbrel sits tight on those contract terms.

 

As I said before, you and I are mostly on the same page when it comes to long term contracts. I agree with everything you wrote here, except I would stick to 3 years or fewer for Eovaldi. Raise the AAV a little if necessary.

 

That said, I really don't think Eovaldi can be signed for 3 years. I think it's going to take four. I would let him walk. I think Dombrowski will go 4 years.

[Kimmi]

Well, they already look like they won't be as good next year. Keuchel, Morton and Marwin Gonzalez are free agents, and they may not replace them in kind.

 

After 2019:

Verlander

Cole

McHugh

Pressly

4th arb: Springer

2nd arb: Osuna, Correa & Devenski

1st arb: Bregman

 

It's not like ours, but they are coming up on some serious and costly choices.

 

They have a strong farm system though.

 

They will be able to fill their holes better than we can.

[Kimmi]

Porcello turns 30 this month. He has a long history of durability and dependability. At this age and over the next 2-4 years, he is still capable of having his best career year.

 

Eovaldi turns 29 in February. He's about 15 months younger than Porcello. He's had one season with more than 154 innings. He's had 2 TJ surgeries. I'll agree, he has nastier stuff than Porcello, and in that sense, one can logically argue he has higher upside, but even this year, his WHIP was 1.278.

 

It seems to me, that his short playoff brilliance is being looked upon as what we can expect for 190 innings x 4 years. I think that is a big leap of faith. Expecting Porcello to continue being steady Rick deserves more faith.

 

Look, maybe we can keep both (and let Sale go), but somebody will have to go, if we bring back Eovaldi for 3+ years.

 

 

It's not just about his postseason numbers.

 

Eovaldi was solid during the regular season.

[Kimmi]

In 2013 Ben signed Dempster at an AAV of 13 or 13.25 million. And he was just expected to be a back of the rotation innings-eater.

 

Pitching is just expensive.

 

For me, it's not as much about the AAV as it is about the number of years.

[dgalehouse]

Like it or don't like it , it is expensive ( and always getting more expensive ) to maintain a championship caliber team year after year . The top players get paid top dollar . Arbitration raises are costly . Free agents want big bucks and the security of long contracts . You can say no to all of them if you want . But it is very difficult for any team to stay on top by depending on the farm. The teams with the best players are the teams that win. Year in and year out , the top teams are usually the big spenders . You don't have to like it , but it is a fact of baseball life.

[notin]

Like it or don't like it , it is expensive ( and always getting more expensive ) to maintain a championship caliber team year after year . The top players get paid top dollar . Arbitration raises are costly . Free agents want big bucks and the security of long contracts . You can say no to all of them if you want . But it is very difficult for any team to stay on top by depending on the farm. The teams with the best players are the teams that win. Year in and year out , the top teams are usually the big spenders . You don't have to like it , but it is a fact of baseball life.

 

 

Actually cheaper teams do still compete. Washington spent a ton and missed the postseason, but Oakland rose theirvshoestring budget into October, just like Minnesota did the year before. Tampa managed a 90 win season without spending...n

[Northern Star]

Actually cheaper teams do still compete. Washington spent a ton and missed the postseason, but Oakland rose theirvshoestring budget into October, just like Minnesota did the year before. Tampa managed a 90 win season without spending...n

 

Those teams often lack that piece (or depth) to put them over the top in the playoffs, though. I still believe there's value in moneyball, the concept makes a lot of sense.

[dgalehouse]

Actually cheaper teams do still compete. Washington spent a ton and missed the postseason, but Oakland rose theirvshoestring budget into October, just like Minnesota did the year before. Tampa managed a 90 win season without spending...n

 

Teams like that can compete, at least to a certain extent , in any given year , especially with the wild card situation. Point is , they cannot do it consistently.

[moonslav59]

Teams like that can compete, at least to a certain extent , in any given year , especially with the wild card situation. Point is , they cannot do it consistently.

 

To some extent, yes, but the Rays and A's have been competitive quite a few seasons.

 

The Rays made the playoffs in 4 of 6 seasons not too long ago, and they won 90 games this year. They've won 80 or more games in 9 of the last 11 seasons.

 

That's pretty damn good for one of the lowest spenders in MLB.

 

The A's have made the playoff in 9 of the last 19 seasons, They've also avoided being horrible and getting top draft picks. They've long won less than 74 games twice in the last 21 seasons.

 

Minnesota has made the playoffs in 7 of the last 17 seasons and won over 83 games in 10 of 17 seasons.

[dgalehouse]

To some extent, yes, but the Rays and A's have been competitive quite a few seasons.

 

The Rays made the playoffs in 4 of 6 seasons not too long ago, and they won 90 games this year. They've won 80 or more games in 9 of the last 11 seasons.

 

That's pretty damn good for one of the lowest spenders in MLB.

 

The A's have made the playoff in 9 of the last 19 seasons, They've also avoided being horrible and getting top draft picks. They've long won less than 74 games twice in the last 21 seasons.

 

Minnesota has made the playoffs in 7 of the last 17 seasons and won over 83 games in 10 of 17 seasons.

 

The Twins have been the big money Yankees favorite post season patsies . Oakland has won nothing since the pre Billy Beane glory days . The Rays have one pennant and zero rings in their existence. Oakland and Tampa Bay have lost most of their fan support. They probably need to relocate. Are these the models for success ? Is this what you want for the Red Sox ?

[Fisk]

The Twins have been the big money Yankees favorite post season patsies . Oakland has won nothing since the pre Billy Beane glory days . The Rays have one pennant and zero rings in their existence. Oakland and Tampa Bay have lost most of their fan support. They probably need to relocate. Are these the models for success ? Is this what you want for the Red Sox ?

What separates the Sox from them is the payroll they have much more depth. But specifically the A’s and the Rays can sort of compete because they have had very good front offices that get the most out of there resources.

[dgalehouse]

The Twins have been the big money Yankees favorite post season patsies . Oakland has won nothing since the pre Billy Beane glory days . The Rays have one pennant and zero rings in their existence. Oakland and Tampa Bay have lost most of their fan support. They probably need to relocate. Are these the models for success ? Is this what you want for the Red Sox ?

 

What separates the Sox from them is the payroll they have much more depth. But specifically the A’s and the Rays can sort of compete because they have had very good front offices that get the most out of there resources.

 

" Sort of compete ? " Is that the goal ? The Sox having a higher payroll is precisely my point. Fenway is packed every night . The team is a near dynasty . The A's and Rays play in nearly empty stadiums. The owners are all wealthy. Which do you want ? A championship caliber team or a perennial underdog who tries to " sort of compete ? "

[moonslav59]

The Twins have been the big money Yankees favorite post season patsies . Oakland has won nothing since the pre Billy Beane glory days . The Rays have one pennant and zero rings in their existence. Oakland and Tampa Bay have lost most of their fan support. They probably need to relocate. Are these the models for success ? Is this what you want for the Red Sox ?

 

Where did I ever say or imply I wanted this for the Red Sox?

 

Where did I ever say these teams should be the models of success?

 

I just pointed out how some low spending teams have been, more or less, consistently competitive. They are not flash in the pan one or two year wonders like KC.

 

I'm not sure where you think I'm coming from.

 

You made it sound like these teams can compete once in a great while, but they have done better than that, despite not winning any rings.

 

Of course, I would not want us to follow their model, although I wish we had some of their talent evaporators in our system.

Edited December 3, 2018 by moonslav59

[Fisk]

" Sort of compete ? " Is that the goal ? The Sox having a higher payroll is precisely my point. Fenway is packed every night . The team is a near dynasty . The A's and Rays play in nearly empty stadiums. The owners are all wealthy. Which do you want ? A championship caliber team or a perennial underdog who tries to " sort of compete ? "

I was agreeing with you all I was pointing out was if these teams had the money to spend they would no doubt build a dynasty.

[dgalehouse]

Where did I ever say or imply I wanted this for the Red Sox?

 

Where did I ever say these teams should be the models of success?

 

I just pointed out how some low spending teams have been, more or less, consistently competitive. They are not flash in the pan one or two year wonders like KC.

 

I'm not sure where you think I'm coming from.

 

I'm not sure either. It seems that you were rebutting my opinion that spending is tied to success. I absolutely think that it is.

[dgalehouse]

I was agreeing with you all I was pointing out was if these teams had the money to spend they would no doubt build a dynasty.

 

Okay . The thing is , they do have the money. An MLB franchise is worth plenty. People used to complain about the Yankees buying championships . But George Steinbrenner was not the wealthiest owner . Not at all . But he wanted to win. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money . I think John Henry understands this . But to stay on top, he will have to continue to be willing to spend. Some fans want to win without spending. It doesn't work.

[moonslav59]

I'm not sure either. It seems that you were rebutting my opinion that spending is tied to success. I absolutely think that it is.

 

No. It sounded like you were saying these specific team are only competitive in short periods of time and can't remain consistently competitive. I think the Rays and A's have been more competitive than many teams that always spend more than them, so in a way, I guess I am saying they do better than some bigger spenders, but of course spending big makes most team much better and more able to go beyond just being "competitive". Winning it all almost always takes money.

 

It seems strange that the rays & A's have not won a ring since the early 70's and a team like KC won once. I guess finishing worst so many years can help you build your farm. The Rays got some top picks before they started their fairly decent run at being pretty competitive for over a decade.

 

I totally agree that spending is tied to success, but many teams spend big and never win and a few teams have shown they can spend little and do better than some who spend a lot more.

 

It's not a cut and dried correlation.

[Fisk]

Okay . The thing is , they do have the money. An MLB franchise is worth plenty. People used to complain about the Yankees buying championships . But George Steinbrenner was not the wealthiest owner . Not at all . But he wanted to win. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money . I think John Henry understands this . But to stay on top, he will have to continue to be willing to spend. Some fans want to win without spending. It doesn't work.

They May have the money to spend but ownership doe not allow it.

[moonslav59]

Okay . The thing is , they do have the money. An MLB franchise is worth plenty. People used to complain about the Yankees buying championships . But George Steinbrenner was not the wealthiest owner . Not at all . But he wanted to win. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money . I think John Henry understands this . But to stay on top, he will have to continue to be willing to spend. Some fans want to win without spending. It doesn't work.

 

I wouldn't mind if Henry agrees to never reset the tax and spends and spends, but part of me will think I am being hypocritical after spending all those years lambasting Yankee fans for King George buying rings. I'd prefer we don't get that image, but winning is certainly better than enduring some of the same taunts from Yankee fans I used to hurl at them.

[Fisk]

I wouldn't mind if Henry agrees to never reset the tax and spends and spends, but part of me will think I am being hypocritical after spending all those years lambasting Yankee fans for King George buying rings. I'd prefer we don't get that image, but winning is certainly better than enduring some of the same taunts from Yankee fans I used to hurl at them.

If the next Cba is in their favor I’m going to guess we will be consistently over the tax. Also would not surprise me if we do not reset the tax in the next couple of years.

The Sox are a money making machine, they easily can afford it, the issue is with the draft pick penalties which I imagine will lessen in the next agreement. And to tell the truth where the Sox are drafting moving down 10 spots is not that bad.

[dgalehouse]

I wouldn't mind if Henry agrees to never reset the tax and spends and spends, but part of me will think I am being hypocritical after spending all those years lambasting Yankee fans for King George buying rings. I'd prefer we don't get that image, but winning is certainly better than enduring some of the same taunts from Yankee fans I used to hurl at them.

CBS owned the Yankees before Steinbrenner. They had more money than he could dream of. But the team sucked and Yankee Stadium was more than half empty much of the time. You have to have the money and the know how in order to succeed . The Sox have that now . Despite a certain degree of competiveness , Tampa Bay and Oakland are failed franchises right now . I am not trying to be argumentative , I just think that when you have a winning formula, you stick with it. And it will require spending. No doubt about it.

[moonslav59]

If the next Cba is in their favor I’m going to guess we will be consistently over the tax. Also would not surprise me if we do not reset the tax in the next couple of years.

The Sox are a money making machine, they easily can afford it, the issue is with the draft pick penalties which I imagine will lessen in the next agreement. And to tell the truth where the Sox are drafting moving down 10 spots is not that bad.

 

No, that penalty is not bad.

 

I'm not a betting man, but I think we reset after 2020, but it wouldn't surprise me, if we do it after 2019, so we can spend big in 2020 and keep Mookie around.

 

In either case, resetting in after 2019 or 2020 would mean trying to limit any big deals signed this year to less than 2 or 3 years, unless we view the player as a must for the year we reset.

[Fisk]

No, that penalty is not bad.

 

I'm not a betting man, but I think we reset after 2020, but it wouldn't surprise me, if we do it after 2019, so we can spend big in 2020 and keep Mookie around.

 

In either case, resetting in after 2019 or 2020 would mean trying to limit any big deals signed this year to less than 2 or 3 years, unless we view the player as a must for the year we reset.

 

I’m guessing the decision to reset will be linked to what they project the next Cba to be.

[dgalehouse]

If the next Cba is in their favor I’m going to guess we will be consistently over the tax. Also would not surprise me if we do not reset the tax in the next couple of years.

The Sox are a money making machine, they easily can afford it, the issue is with the draft pick penalties which I imagine will lessen in the next agreement. And to tell the truth where the Sox are drafting moving down 10 spots is not that bad.

 

MLB is constantly trying to achieve a semblance of competitive balance . The more you finish on top , the lower your draft picks. The more you spend , the higher the penalty taxes . Maybe the next step will be free beer and hot dogs for anyone buying a ticket to a Rays game. As a long time Sox fan , I just want to see us continue to succeed.

[moonslav59]

CBS owned the Yankees before Steinbrenner. They had more money than he could dream of. But the team sucked and Yankee Stadium was more than half empty much of the time. You have to have the money and the know how in order to succeed . The Sox have that now . Despite a certain degree of competiveness , Tampa Bay and Oakland are failed franchises right now . I am not trying to be argumentative , I just think that when you have a winning formula, you stick with it. And it will require spending. No doubt about it.

 

No disagreement here. Probably most MLB team owners could easily spend $230+M on salaries, if they wanted to do it. Although doing so wouldn't guarantee rings, especially if they all did it at once. It might not even guarantee a major increase in attendance or TV viewership, if some of these teams did win. I remember seeing empty seats in some World Series games a while back.

 

I do think Henry might decide to not reset the luxury tax, and if that is true, a lot of my posts have been based on faulty assumptions, but I still think he'd prefer not to pay these top tax rates every year or acquire the same reputation King George acquired when spending the Yanks to win after win.

 

I think there is a certain amount of pride among owners to show you can manage a team to wins without outspending the next team by $35-40M. I'm thinking this year was a one time deal, as other teams that just reset the tax will come close to us in 2019, so it won't look so bad anymore, but I'm still going to continue to go on the assumption, right or wrong, that we will reset after 2020 or 2019 or almost certainly after 2021.

 

[Fisk]

MLB is constantly trying to achieve a semblance of competitive balance . The more you finish on top , the lower your draft picks. The more you spend , the higher the penalty taxes . Maybe the next step will be free beer and hot dogs for anyone buying a ticket to a Rays game. As a long time Sox fan , I just want to see us continue to succeed.

 

Players got hosed in the last agreement think there will be a battle this time, which should favor the big market teams.