A Realistic View at 2019: Part I

[dgalehouse]

Joe Kelly's ERA by months last year:

 

Apr 3.09

May 0.63

June 8.31

July 8.38

Aug 1.42

Sept 8.31

Playoffs 0.79

 

Now that's erratic.

 

Yo-yo Kelly ?

[moonslav59]

Some of our compadres on this site use long term performance to justify decisions for the on going team. I am reluctant to do that with players who appear to be breaking out of their long term performance mold. Kelly did look to improve last season toward the end and may well have found something. Bogaert's hitting really was better in 2018, presumably because he took to heart to swing at good pitches earlier in the count and to try to drive the ball. Using long term statistics to justify decisions about Wright or Pedey are no more than a guess and are probably not close to reality. I'm not worried, as I think the Sox front office is aware of the likely performance of guys and will usually make good decisions. Like you, I believe the loss of Kimbrel, without a suitable replacement will impact the team's performance. But like Kimmi, I would be reluctant to pay big bucks and more reluctant to get into long term deals for closers.

 

I like to look more at a player's last 2-3 years than his career numbers or just last one year or half year. Age plays into it.

 

Normally, one would expect someone to stay even or improve on their recent 2-3 years, if they are 26 or younger, stay about the same, if they are 27-29 and maybe decline a little, if they are 30-32. Once a player is 33 or older, I count on a decline, but nothing is automatic.

 

That being said, here are the 3 recent year numbers and ages of our current Sox players.

 

26 and under (normally expect improvement on these numbers)

26 Betts .917

26 Bogey .808

24 Benintendi .801

22 Devers .760

 

27-29 (in Prime, so usually expect about the same)

28 Bradley .763

28 Vazquez .635

 

30-32 (expect some decline)

31 Martinez 1.003

31 Nunez .745

30 B Holt .705

 

33+ (decline is expected)

33 Moreland .750

36 Pearce .830

[moonslav59]

Joe Kelly's ERA by months last year:

 

Apr 3.09

May 0.63

June 8.31

July 8.38

Aug 1.42

Sept 8.31

Playoffs 0.79

 

Now that's erratic.

 

His career is more like a rollercoaster...

 

3.53

2.69

4.20

4.82

5.18

2.79

4.39

 

He has a career 3.87 ERA but has only been within 0.34 of that twice (year 1 and 3).

 

He's been over 0.52 from his norm in 5 of his 7 years.

 

He's been over 0.95 from his norm in 4 of 7 years.

 

People who dislike JBJ's in consistency should be happy to seee JK go.

[Bellhorn04]

His career is more like a rollercoaster...

 

3.53

2.69

4.20

4.82

5.18

2.79

4.39

 

He has a career 3.87 ERA but has only been within 0.34 of that twice (year 1 and 3).

 

He's been over 0.52 from his norm in 5 of his 7 years.

 

He's been over 0.95 from his norm in 4 of 7 years.

 

People who dislike JBJ's in consistency should be happy to seee JK go.

 

And a lot of that is the elusive nature of the game.

 

But there are no numbers to support the idea that Kelly is a huge loss for the pen.

 

He was great in the playoffs, absolutely. OTOH Kimbrel was terrible in the playoffs.

[moonslav59]

And a lot of that is the elusive nature of the game.

 

But there are no numbers to support the idea that Kelly is a huge loss for the pen.

 

He was great in the playoffs, absolutely. OTOH Kimbrel was terrible in the playoffs.

 

I do think Kelly can be replaced from within.

 

I just hope we don't have to go through 5 guys to find the right one.

 

 

Yes, Kelly and his comp (JBJ) were great in the playoffs.

[Kimmi]

You're gonna make the playoffs no matter what IMO. The composite talent on the sox plus the dearth of talent beyond the playoff teams from last year tells me there are 6 teams vying for 5 spots and the sox are still better than the Rays and A's (two teams where I think one of them is team #5). The pen will not cause you to not play beyond 162. But the WC game is a huge change from year's past. You can win 100 games and have a do or die game to go to the ALDS. We've gone 2-1 in that game since it was instituted, and the one loss just plain sucks. You go from being excited your team is in the POs to watching a single game, then the season ends. It blew. With how good the Yankees are on paper coming into this season and the sox leaving a critical piece of today's game completely exposed, there is a strong chance the pen experiment puts you in a play in game. If you're gonna spend to the max line, incur a penalty for last year and probably be forced to incur another this year, your team should do everything in its power to maximize the chances of avoiding a one and done scenario

 

What makes you so sure that the Sox will be playing the wildcard game? You were pretty sure that the Yankees would run away with the division last year also and it didn't happen. It will be a dogfight, no doubt. But the Sox pen is just not a concern for me.

[cp176]

Some of our compadres on this site use long term performance to justify decisions for the on going team. I am reluctant to do that with players who appear to be breaking out of their long term performance mold. Kelly did look to improve last season toward the end and may well have found something. Bogaert's hitting really was better in 2018, presumably because he took to heart to swing at good pitches earlier in the count and to try to drive the ball. Using long term statistics to justify decisions about Wright or Pedey are no more than a guess and are probably not close to reality. I'm not worried, as I think the Sox front office is aware of the likely performance of guys and will usually make good decisions. Like you, I believe the loss of Kimbrel, without a suitable replacement will impact the team's performance. But like Kimmi, I would be reluctant to pay big bucks and more reluctant to get into long term deals for closers.

 

I'm with you here. Hopefully no one though would be too excited to sign a closer no matter how good to a long term contract costing huge amounts of money. i would still love to see Kimbrel come back but certainly not for the asking price. It it starting to look as though owners feel about the same way. Very little has been said about any of the guys out there looking for these huge $ long term contracts.

[cp176]

Some of our compadres on this site use long term performance to justify decisions for the on going team. I am reluctant to do that with players who appear to be breaking out of their long term performance mold. Kelly did look to improve last season toward the end and may well have found something. Bogaert's hitting really was better in 2018, presumably because he took to heart to swing at good pitches earlier in the count and to try to drive the ball. Using long term statistics to justify decisions about Wright or Pedey are no more than a guess and are probably not close to reality. I'm not worried, as I think the Sox front office is aware of the likely performance of guys and will usually make good decisions. Like you, I believe the loss of Kimbrel, without a suitable replacement will impact the team's performance. But like Kimmi, I would be reluctant to pay big bucks and more reluctant to get into long term deals for closers.

 

Have to add though that as each day passes and we get closer to spring, with Kimbrel not finding a fit that he likes, I like our chances of his returning more and more. Not great but there is still a chance.

[moonslav59]

Have to add though that as each day passes and we get closer to spring, with Kimbrel not finding a fit that he likes, I like our chances of his returning more and more. Not great but there is still a chance.

 

If he's willing to take a one year deal, doubtful, in hopes that the market changes, he'll still cost us so much in taxes. I just think his contract will be prohibitive.

 

I wonder, if he's even had a serious offer, yet.

[cp176]

If he's willing to take a one year deal, doubtful, in hopes that the market changes, he'll still cost us so much in taxes. I just think his contract will be prohibitive.

 

I wonder, if he's even had a serious offer, yet.

 

It certainly has sounded doubtful that he will be coming back but you never know. He won't get what he has been asking for from Boston safe to say but on the other hand who in their right mind would offer him that? What he is asking for and what he will ultimately take if indeed he wants to play may send him back to the Sox.

[moonslav59]

It certainly has sounded doubtful that he will be coming back but you never know. He won't get what he has been asking for from Boston safe to say but on the other hand who in their right mind would offer him that? What he is asking for and what he will ultimately take if indeed he wants to play may send him back to the Sox.

 

I think it will come down to whether DD thinks the total cost, counting the tax, is reasonable or not.

 

To me, his cost would have to drop a lot for that to happen.

[Nick]

I think it will come down to whether DD thinks the total cost, counting the tax, is reasonable or not.

 

To me, his cost would have to drop a lot for that to happen.

 

It's unfortunate for Kimbrel that his salary demand will have a multiplier effect of 1.425 and 1.9+ with the Sox for which he had no control over.

 

It's also clear that Sox prioritized Eovaldi over Kimbrel.

 

No one here really acknowledges this but Eovaldi signing in part was a hedge against both Porcello and Sale not returning for 2020 season. As it stands, we look to have three quality starters for 2020, not two.

[mvp 78]

If he's willing to take a one year deal, doubtful, in hopes that the market changes, he'll still cost us so much in taxes. I just think his contract will be prohibitive.

 

I wonder, if he's even had a serious offer, yet.

 

I think he signs for something like 2/30.

[Nick]

Henry alluded to Sox 'losing' money some years.

 

I think many of us are consumed with the luxury tax implications only and I'm very guilty of that. We forget that we threw away $70M for our permanent minor leaguer. We also matched posting/signing fee for Moncada. They all add up on Sox financial statement.

 

I wee where Henry is coming from.

[mvp 78]

Henry alluded to Sox 'losing' money some years.

 

I think many of us are consumed with the luxury tax implications only and I'm very guilty of that. We forget that we threw away $70M for our permanent minor leaguer. We also matched posting/signing fee for Moncada. They all add up on Sox financial statement.

 

I wee where Henry is coming from.

 

The Sox aren't losing money. If Henry said that, he's lying.

[Bellhorn04]

No one here really acknowledges this but Eovaldi signing in part was a hedge against both Porcello and Sale not returning for 2020 season.

 

I agreed with that.

[notin]

I agreed with that.

 

Certainly true. Although he’s an odd hedge against Porcello with his ridiculous durability. Sale has expressed an interest in an extension, but it likely won’t be a team-friendly one and certainly won’t happen until the Sox are deep enough into the season that it isn’t counted against this year’s tax limits. If at all...

[moonslav59]

Certainly true. Although he’s an odd hedge against Porcello with his ridiculous durability. Sale has expressed an interest in an extension, but it likely won’t be a team-friendly one and certainly won’t happen until the Sox are deep enough into the season that it isn’t counted against this year’s tax limits. If at all...

 

Isn't one day into the season deep enough for tax purposes?

[notin]

Isn't one day into the season deep enough for tax purposes?

 

 

Probably. But then if the Sox really miscalculated their salary vs luxury tax last year, maybe they exercise a little prudence and wait a week or two...

[Bellhorn04]

Probably. But then if the Sox really miscalculated their salary vs luxury tax last year, maybe they exercise a little prudence and wait a week or two...

 

They didn't miscalculate last year. They went over the top threshold by $2.5 million.

[Nick]

They didn't miscalculate last year. They went over the top threshold by $2.5 million.

 

And we won the whole thing. World Champions > 10 slots down and lesser international pool money. Period.

[Kimmi]

I think he signs for something like 2/30.

 

If that happens, that is a FAR cry from his initial demand of 6/100.

 

I think he'll get more than that.

[Kimmi]

Henry alluded to Sox 'losing' money some years.

 

I think many of us are consumed with the luxury tax implications only and I'm very guilty of that. We forget that we threw away $70M for our permanent minor leaguer. We also matched posting/signing fee for Moncada. They all add up on Sox financial statement.

 

I wee where Henry is coming from.

 

We need to keep in mind that when contracts don't work out, or when the long contracts end up no longer being worth their value, even though the Sox might be willing to eat the contract, or even though the contract was worth it in the first half, this dead money may prevent the team from making future moves.

 

Imagine what we could do with the money we're paying Pablo.

[Bellhorn04]

And we won the whole thing. World Champions > 10 slots down and lesser international pool money. Period.

 

There's no loss of international pool money but I think there's loss of 'slot money' for the regular draft.

[Nick]

There's no loss of international pool money but I think there's loss of 'slot money' for the regular draft.

 

Thanks......sometimes I just make stuff up or it seems.

[Bellhorn04]

Thanks......sometimes I just make stuff up or it seems.

 

It's very confusing stuff. There are also some penalties that apply if you exceed tax thresholds AND sign a free agent who received a Qualifying Offer.

[dgalehouse]

The owners could not get a salary cap . But they did slip a few things past the player's union . The luxury tax and some of the other restrictions serve as sort of a de facto salary cap . They discourage spending . And some owners just don't seem interested in spending to put a contender on the field for their fans . I think the players are getting more and more disgruntled with the way things are going . The next labor negotiation will not be easy . I think a strike would be very damaging to all . But it could happen .

[moonslav59]

The owners could not get a salary cap . But they did slip a few things past the player's union . The luxury tax and some of the other restrictions serve as sort of a de facto salary cap . They discourage spending . And some owners just don't seem interested in spending to put a contender on the field for their fans . I think the players are getting more and more disgruntled with the way things are going . The next labor negotiation will not be easy . I think a strike would be very damaging to all . But it could happen .

 

The Luxury tax only affects a very small amount of teams, so I'm not sure it makes much of a difference for 26-27 teams each year. The vast majority of teams are way below the first luxury tax line.

 

I think it is obvious the owners have realized paying huge contracts for guys like Pujols hardly ever pays off. Maybe there's some collusion going on, too, but I think owners have wised up, thanks, in part to all the new value data (metrics) available these days.

[jacksonianmarch]

slav, owners have wised up. They also see the downside of crossing the lux tax thresholds and with the shift towards development, absolutely see the problem that a 10 spot drop and a $500K loss in draft budget can do to a team

[moonslav59]

slav, owners have wised up. They also see the downside of crossing the lux tax thresholds and with the shift towards development, absolutely see the problem that a 10 spot drop and a $500K loss in draft budget can do to a team

 

So, it's stopped one team from spending more that $40M over the line. Changing that does not make much of a difference.

 

Wouldn't raising the minimum wage to $1M or more would be a huge thing for many players. Move the first arb year up 2 years and lessen the last year by one year. This would be a windfall for many players who never make the big payday. Low spending teams would have to pay more. Expand the roster by one or two players would offer much more job security and ML salary security for 30-60 more players plus the players that yo-yo up and down all year.

 

Instead of taxing big spenders, what if small spenders were given incentives to spend on free agents? I'm not sure how you set all that up, but it would help way more players than raising the luxury tax line significantly or taking away the penalties on big spenders.

 

I'm not saying the luxury tax has not prevented some teams from spending more and more. Of course it has. But, how many teams and players has this directly affected? It's miniscule within the scope of 30 teams and 800+ players.

 

I know opening day payrolls data can be deceiving, but in 2018 only 2 teams (BOS & SFG) were over $187M, which is pretty far from the first luxury tax line. Now, I know several teams came very close to the line by season's end, but only 6 teams started the season over $169M.

 

Half the teams were under $155M on opening day. That's $40M under the first tax line. The tax means nothing to way over half the teams- probably something like 22-25 teams.

 

Nine teams we around or under $100M.

 

The way to get more player paid more money is not to drive up the salaries of the top 10-20 players but to raise the salaries of the bottom 400-500 players by maybe just a half million pre-arb and much more when the reach arb 2 years earlier.