And the off season begins (2018-19)

[Bellhorn04]

Possibly.

 

I just don't think that Dombrowski has the open checkbook that he's had in the past years.

 

The checkbook was open enough to sign Eovaldi for a 17 million AAV and put us 35 million over the threshold.

[notin]

The checkbook was open enough to sign Eovaldi for a 17 million AAV and put us 35 million over the threshold.

 

Does that mean it’s still open?

[Bellhorn04]

Does that mean it’s still open?

 

Nobody knows. But to me it certainly doesn't point to efforts to 'reign things in'.

[Kimmi]

I'm sure there's a limit, but we have not seen anything definitive about what that limit is.

 

We went 40 million + over the first threshold last year. We're already about 35 million over it this year. We signed Pearce and Eovaldi. It doesn't look like belt-tightening just yet.

 

IMO, the directive from Henry is different this off season.

 

In the past, it's been more along the lines of do whatever it takes to bring us a championship, regardless of cost.

 

This year, it's more along the lines of do your best to limit spending and contract years. If there are no other options, then we'll do what we have to do, but exhaust all other options first.

 

So Henry might not actually have a limit this year, but I do believe the belt is tightening.

[Jack Flap]

Just IMO, if there ever was a year to "just go for it," 2019 would seem to be it. We're going to be way over the limit again anyway, whereas starting in 2020 we have a lot of money set to come off the books and no guarantees as to who will still be around and who won't. When you have a historically dominant team coming back almost completely intact for a chance at back-to-back titles (a longshot, to be sure, but I think we're in as good a position as you can ask for to try), and just need a late-innings arm or two to complete the roster, "going for it" doesn't even require much effort above what you've already done, and pinching pennies at the margins wouldn't make much sense and would send a pretty lousy message.

 

Now that doesn't mean you have to go out and do something stupid like give Kimbrel $100 million or trade all your prospects for a rental closer, but I just don't buy that our budget is tapped out and that the Robertson/Britton/Ottavino class is out of our price range. Of course, even if we pass on those guys and make some slightly more low-key additions, I think we'll still be in fine shape, but I don't see why the luxury tax should be considered an obstacle at this point. Again, we're going over next year anyway - might as well go over with gusto. You can always try to reset in 2020 if you need to.

 

Whether Henry shares those thoughts or not, I cannot say.

[cp176]

I'm sure there's a limit, but we have not seen anything definitive about what that limit is.

 

We went 40 million + over the first threshold last year. We're already about 35 million over it this year. We signed Pearce and Eovaldi. It doesn't look like belt-tightening just yet.

 

i don't think that anyone here has a clue as to what the organization is willing to spend. DD didn't get to where he has gotten simply by having the ability to outspend everyone else. He is and has been a successful GM. No one that I know of just spends without being pretty much aware of the ramifications of what goes along with the spending. I guess for some it sounds better when they assume that JH has imposed a spending limit on DD. Personally I think that he is well aware of how to spend the money that we have to spend and that he works quite closely with JH. I don't see him as being a financially reckless GM who only wins by spending. It is apparent to me that he knows how to put at team together - of course I am only basing this opinion on the results that we have seen.

[Kimmi]

The checkbook was open enough to sign Eovaldi for a 17 million AAV and put us 35 million over the threshold.

 

The checkbook was not completely closed. But that's not the same thing as saying that it's completely open.

[Kimmi]

Nobody knows. But to me it certainly doesn't point to efforts to 'reign things in'.

 

I really think that if we were not reigning things in, we'd have a closer.

[Kimmi]

Just IMO, if there ever was a year to "just go for it," 2019 would seem to be it. We're going to be way over the limit again anyway, whereas starting in 2020 we have a lot of money set to come off the books and no guarantees as to who will still be around and who won't. When you have a historically dominant team coming back almost completely intact for a chance at back-to-back titles (a longshot, to be sure, but I think we're in as good a position as you can ask for to try), and just need a late-innings arm or two to complete the roster, "going for it" doesn't even require much effort above what you've already done, and pinching pennies at the margins wouldn't make much sense and would send a pretty lousy message.

 

Now that doesn't mean you have to go out and do something stupid like give Kimbrel $100 million or trade all your prospects for a rental closer, but I just don't buy that our budget is tapped out and that the Robertson/Britton/Ottavino class is out of our price range. Of course, even if we pass on those guys and make some slightly more low-key additions, I think we'll still be in fine shape, but I don't see why the luxury tax should be considered an obstacle at this point. Again, we're going over next year anyway - might as well go over with gusto. You can always try to reset in 2020 if you need to.

 

Whether Henry shares those thoughts or not, I cannot say.

 

I 100% believe that we will not enter the season without a great bullpen.

 

Henry is not going to skimp in that area when the rest of the team is so strong.

[Jack Flap]

I 100% believe that we will not enter the season without a great bullpen.

 

Henry is not going to skimp in that area when the rest of the team is so strong.

 

I agree and thank you for summarizing my point in a lot fewer words.

[Bellhorn04]

IMO, the directive from Henry is different this off season.

 

In the past, it's been more along the lines of do whatever it takes to bring us a championship, regardless of cost.

 

Not really. Before 2017 they actually reduced payroll a bit and got under the first tax threshold.

[Bellhorn04]

The checkbook was not completely closed. But that's not the same thing as saying that it's completely open.

 

No, it's never completely open. We're not in on Machado or Harper. There are limits.

 

All we're really arguing about, I think, is whether there's another 10 million or so for this year's bullpen.

[Jack Flap]

I really think that if we were not reigning things in, we'd have a closer.

 

I think a lot of it a combination of the market waiting on Kimbrel signing and the Red Sox waiting to see if these guys' demands drop. There was a report, for example, that Robertson was looking for three years but the Red Sox were only willing to go up to two - perfectly reasonable and, by itself, not evidence of any new directive to slash payroll.

 

We'll see what happens in the next few weeks, but I feel zero worry or anxiety about our bullpen situation right now.

[notin]

Nobody knows. But to me it certainly doesn't point to efforts to 'reign things in'.

 

 

Look at it this way. Either there is a budget limit or there isn’t.

 

If there is no budget limit, the bullpen solution is easy. It’s not like every agent for every elite closer isn’t going to contact DD just to see if he can make a better offer. No closers sign anywhere until DD has a chance! When you are a large budget team, you get that sort of help.

 

But if there is a limit, the solution goes to the other extreme and gets much more difficult. If it’s in the $5-7mill range, even the harshest market drop won’t bring Kimbrel/ Robertson/etc. down to that range. The Sox will have to sign for a pitcher who takes less money (Shawn Kelley?) and/or trade for a closer. Trade bait includes Chavis, Dalbec, Darwinzon Hernandez, and maybe Brock Holt. Pick and choose from that list...

Edited December 30, 2018 by notin

[moonslav59]

My take is that DD has a limit.It might not be a strict "don't go over the $40M line" limit, but I think he will try to stay under or very close to that line. The only exception, in my opinion, is if he can get a solid closer or RP'er on a 1 year deal.

 

While it does not seem probable that any solid RP'er might sign a 1 year deal, if a few are left late in the signing period, maybe one takes a big paycheck for one year as a way to reset his value by hoping for a big and visible season with the 2019 champions.

[dgalehouse]

It would be foolish to try and defend the championship by going cheap on the bullpen. I just don't get that. The pen is too important. You don't have to bust the budget to sign Kimbrel or Britton. But you have to at least get a quality guy like Ottavino or Robertson. ( Actually, I am not too keen on Robertson. ) I can't believe that we can't afford to do this much.

[moonslav59]

It would be foolish to try and defend the championship by going cheap on the bullpen. I just don't get that. The pen is too important. You don't have to bust the budget to sign Kimbrel or Britton. But you have to at least get a quality guy like Ottavino or Robertson. ( Actually, I am not too keen on Robertson. ) I can't believe that we can't afford to do this much.

 

I'm not high on Robertson, either.

 

MLBTRs has Ottavino getting $30M/3. That would put us $5M over the max penalty line and add $10M a year to the 2020 and 2021 budgets, which to me, is the major concern.

 

While $10M may not seem like a lot, when we will be looking to reset the tax by letting several key players walk, that $10M might make a huge difference.

 

I don't like the idea of going cheap on the closer slot, but I wanted Eovaldi more.

 

The Pearce argument only affects 2019.

 

We are super strong every where else but closer. Most teams have more than one hole.

 

We also have some money to spend mid season- an area DD seems to do very well.

 

I'd like to see us trade for a decent, low-cost RP'er and save some money for July. I think we will be the favorites, if we do that, even if the Yanks add Machado and the Dodgers add Harper. (Houston does not appear to be getting better.)

[a700hitter]

Back to Back championships would be quite an accomplishment. The cliff will get here one way or another. Pushing for back to back championships shouldn't make it much worse.

 

!!!

 

Just to clarify. When I speak of the "cliff" I am referring to a period when we finish second, play above .500 ball and still compete for a Wild Card. I am not referring to an Ben-like abyss.

[moonslav59]

Just to clarify. When I speak of the "cliff" I am referring to a period when we finish second, play above .500 ball and still compete for a Wild Card. I am not referring to an Ben-like abyss.

 

Well, those Ben teams were not projected to finish last, either.

[moonslav59]

Bleacher Report Projections:

 

2012: 88-74 (3rd place)

(Grantland: 87-75 3rd)

 

I'll come right out and say it: The Red Sox are not good enough to win the American League East.

For all the runs the Sox are going to score, they have no assurances that their pitching is going to be any better than it was in 2011. Even if everything goes well, the ceiling for this pitching staff is pretty low.

Pitching is exactly why the Sox don't measure up against the Rays and the hated Yankees. Both of them have deep, talented starting rotations, and it must be noted that the Yankees have an outstanding bullpen. The two of them are the teams to beat in the AL East. The best the Sox can hope for is to land one of the two wild-card spots. It's possible, but their main competition will be the Los Angeles Angels, another team with better pitching than the Sox.

 

2014: 91-61 (1st)

(Grantland: 89-73 2nd)

 

The Boston Red Sox had a quiet winter but return the nucleus of a team that dominated the regular season and captured a World Series in October. A step back from excellence could occur, but not enough to knock this squad below the 90-win range. In a division without a truly great team, that could be a formula for a return trip to the postseason.

 

2015: 90-72 (1st)

(Grantland 87-75 1st)

 

The additions of Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval, as well as a full season from Mookie Betts, could give them the highest-scoring offense in the league.

What they lack in front-line pitching they should be able to make up for in overall pitching depth, as there are a number of young arms ready to make an impact. They're a risky pick, but if they can even put up league-average production on the mound, they should have the offense to carry them.

 

[cp176]

Just to clarify. When I speak of the "cliff" I am referring to a period when we finish second, play above .500 ball and still compete for a Wild Card. I am not referring to an Ben-like abyss.

 

I was going into worry mode about you ! I am glad that you posted this. Maybe that is actually the scenario that some of our cliff dwellers are actually talking about. lol - I think that as long as JH owns this team we will have something fun to follow.

[cp176]

Bleacher Report Projections:

 

2012: 88-74 (3rd place)

(Grantland: 87-75 3rd)

 

I'll come right out and say it: The Red Sox are not good enough to win the American League East.

For all the runs the Sox are going to score, they have no assurances that their pitching is going to be any better than it was in 2011. Even if everything goes well, the ceiling for this pitching staff is pretty low.

Pitching is exactly why the Sox don't measure up against the Rays and the hated Yankees. Both of them have deep, talented starting rotations, and it must be noted that the Yankees have an outstanding bullpen. The two of them are the teams to beat in the AL East. The best the Sox can hope for is to land one of the two wild-card spots. It's possible, but their main competition will be the Los Angeles Angels, another team with better pitching than the Sox.

 

2014: 91-61 (1st)

(Grantland: 89-73 2nd)

 

The Boston Red Sox had a quiet winter but return the nucleus of a team that dominated the regular season and captured a World Series in October. A step back from excellence could occur, but not enough to knock this squad below the 90-win range. In a division without a truly great team, that could be a formula for a return trip to the postseason.

 

2015: 90-72 (1st)

(Grantland 87-75 1st)

 

The additions of Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval, as well as a full season from Mookie Betts, could give them the highest-scoring offense in the league.

What they lack in front-line pitching they should be able to make up for in overall pitching depth, as there are a number of young arms ready to make an impact. They're a risky pick, but if they can even put up league-average production on the mound, they should have the offense to carry them.

 

 

I think that this actually says more about the people doing the projecting and the data they used than it does about Ben Cherington. People can use all of the data in the world to attempt to make a point but the games still are played on the field and not on the computer.

[notin]

Just to clarify. When I speak of the "cliff" I am referring to a period when we finish second, play above .500 ball and still compete for a Wild Card. I am not referring to an Ben-like abyss.

 

 

Nice save.

 

 

No one is buying you think of dropping down to second place team as a “cliff”....

[Nick]

Bleacher Report Projections:

 

 

2015: 90-72 (1st)

(Grantland 87-75 1st)

 

The additions of Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval, as well as a full season from Mookie Betts, could give them the highest-scoring offense in the league.

What they lack in front-line pitching they should be able to make up for in overall pitching depth, as there are a number of young arms ready to make an impact. They're a risky pick, but if they can even put up league-average production on the mound, they should have the offense to carry them.

 

 

Who the f*** wrote THAT? (nice find, Moon)

 

I guess it just goes to show you, if we go way south this year, this team will be taken apart.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Nick

[notin]

I think that this actually says more about the people doing the projecting and the data they used than it does about Ben Cherington. People can use all of the data in the world to attempt to make a point but the games still are played on the field and not on the computer.

 

 

They’re also not played by general managers.

 

And really, did anyone expect the 2012 and 2014 teams to do so poorly? The Sox were very good in 2014 and for most of 2011...

[notin]

It would be foolish to try and defend the championship by going cheap on the bullpen. I just don't get that. The pen is too important. You don't have to bust the budget to sign Kimbrel or Britton. But you have to at least get a quality guy like Ottavino or Robertson. ( Actually, I am not too keen on Robertson. ) I can't believe that we can't afford to do this much.

 

I don’t think the Sox can or will afford Kimbrel, Britton, Robertson or Ottavino, barring some sort of money-clearing deal.

 

But I also don’t think the “status quo” is going to happen. Also, don’t confuse “going cheap” with “ignoring,” which you keep doing. If DD can pull off a trade for someone like Jeffress or Will Smith or Mychael Givens, that would be immense for this team...

[Bellhorn04]

They’re also not played by general managers.

 

And really, did anyone expect the 2012 and 2014 teams to do so poorly? The Sox were very good in 2014 and for most of 2011...

 

Sometimes the general manager has to wear it.

 

Ben gets great credit for 2013, as he should, but there were some amazing overperformance by a number of players on that team. In 2014 everything turned around in the other direction. Shane Victorino might be the poster boy for what happened.

 

If Ben gets great credit for 2013 he also has to wear the results of 2014 and 2015. That's how I see it, anyway.

 

When you look at the history of the team since 2002, generally speaking the only years where the team fell vastly short of pre-season expectations were the Cherington years.

[Kimmi]

No, it's never completely open. We're not in on Machado or Harper. There are limits.

 

All we're really arguing about, I think, is whether there's another 10 million or so for this year's bullpen.

 

I think there is, but I think the reigning in for this year is more about the length of the contract, in anticipation of trying to reset in 2020 or, at the latest, 2021.

[moonslav59]

I think that this actually says more about the people doing the projecting and the data they used than it does about Ben Cherington. People can use all of the data in the world to attempt to make a point but the games still are played on the field and not on the computer.

 

My point was more about how some might think we are still competitive (just like the Bleacher Report) after letting Sale and Betts walk, but we may finish in last place despite this optimism.

[moonslav59]

I think there is, but I think the reigning in for this year is more about the length of the contract, in anticipation of trying to reset in 2020 or, at the latest, 2021.

 

That's what I've been saying all along.

 

The 4 year Eovaldi deal really limits and 2+ year plans for a solid RP'er, unless we plan to trade salary after 2019 or not reset.