A Realistic View at 2020: Part I

[Bellhorn04]

I honestly don’t believe much that comes out of Kennedy’s mouth, especially when he’s cleaning up a PR mess before tickets come available

 

He's now playing the role Lucchino used to play.

[moonslav59]

But the mandate is for 2020, right? I know they backed off that a bit, but I am pretty sure the Sox are making a concerted effort to get below the LT in 2020 so as to avoid the 50% overage and reset for later.

 

Yes, the mandate is 2020, and any little bit helps, but we'll still have issues in 2021 and 2022. My guess is Henry will allow us to go over after the reset but not by enough to go over the max line (maybe not even the second line), and if we want to re-sign Betts or replace him "in kind," we'll need some space in 2021. This trade would greatly improve the 2021 and 2022 tax budget landscape.

[cp176]

It's a goal, not a mandate LOL

 

I don't see how they can do it without causing something of an uproar among the faithful. It's gonna be interesting to watch.

 

I think that the majority of fans are supportive of whoever the GM is. In this case, ours comes with a very good portfolio. Doing next to nothing this year might even be acceptable to most but giving Betts away regardless of how it gets spun - yup - I agree with your statement that it might very well cause an uproar from the faithfull.

[notin]

I think that the majority of fans are supportive of whoever the GM is. In this case, ours comes with a very good portfolio. Doing next to nothing this year might even be acceptable to most but giving Betts away regardless of how it gets spun - yup - I agree with your statement that it might very well cause an uproar from the faithfull.

 

 

It really has to depend on what the Sox get. It’s one thing to deal Fred Lynn away from some aging players on the way down. But the Sox did do OK in trading Nomar and Manny despite actually taking much worse players back.

 

I am against trading Betts in a stupid trade. But not against it overall.

 

But I think more and more, keeping Betts looks likely. If the Orioles can’t find a taker for Villar, maybe teams are against any short term veteran trade? Did the Orioles want too much? Do too many GMs think a versatile 4 fWAR power/speed combo at middle infield is NOT really a big deal? That whole situation is weird...

[OH FOY]

Sox have one advantage over all the teams in Boston, they have no competition, nothing but Baseball, in the summer. Fans will always show up, its generational.

If Boston had another ML Baseball team, then it would be interesting.

Maybe the Celtics if they get to Finals, now that that the NBA schedule seems to end in July now.

Edited November 29, 2019 by OH FOY!

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I think that the majority of fans are supportive of whoever the GM is. In this case, ours comes with a very good portfolio. Doing next to nothing this year might even be acceptable to most but giving Betts away regardless of how it gets spun - yup - I agree with your statement that it might very well cause an uproar from the faithfull.

 

What I've been saying since I got here... the most difficult question for the suddenly money-conscious Red Sox: how can they possibly save without losing?

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, the mandate is 2020, and any little bit helps, but we'll still have issues in 2021 and 2022. My guess is Henry will allow us to go over after the reset but not by enough to go over the max line (maybe not even the second line), and if we want to re-sign Betts or replace him "in kind," we'll need some space in 2021. This trade would greatly improve the 2021 and 2022 tax budget landscape.

 

If we go over the limit in 2020 by 10 or 20 mill it's not a big deal IMO. (Easy for me to say, I know.)

 

Let's say they go over by 15 mill. That's 7.5 mill in tax. Which would be less tax than they paid in 2018 or 2019.

 

My problem is with the idea that if we re-set in 2020 it will put us in great shape to sign Mookie. I really don't think so. If his demands are exorbitant, the re-set makes little difference.

[notin]

As Boston Globe columnist Alex Speier wrote on Friday:

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2019/11/15/takeaway-from-meetings-red-sox-are-open-anything/l6guLESkDmy5ZA0vIENt3K/story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

 

So .... what notin has been saying...

[OH FOY]

Maybe its me, and from what I read, but I get the feeling the Sox wont be going over the Luxury Tax, for a long, long, time.

[notin]

Maybe its me, and from what I read, but I get the feeling the Sox wont be going over the Luxury Tax, for a long, long, time.

 

I never got that impression, but I’m sure if they could do that and make money, JH would be happy.

 

Here’s one thing about Boston market: we don’t do rebuilds...

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe its me, and from what I read, but I get the feeling the Sox wont be going over the Luxury Tax, for a long, long, time.

 

I don't get that feeling.

 

I think one of the reasons Henry is such a smart and successful owner is that he never forgets where all the money is coming from - the fans.

 

The last thing he wants to do is save $20 million in payroll if it's going to cost him $50 million in revenue.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I agree people will always show up in Boston, especially in perspective to the rest of MLB non-contenders. However, attendance will definitely drop if fans aren't getting their money's worth, ie. watching a contender (there are lots of other ways to blow disposable income instead of on Fenway's ridiculous prices of tickets, parking, food and drink). As for tuning to NESN for three or four hours a night, forget it.

 

As for Betts, I have never once thought the Sox can't afford or will choose not to afford him; I just have doubts he wants to stay in New England.

 

But can anyone here ever imagine the New York Yankees not outbidding the entire MLB to extend a lifetime contract to one of their own homegrown superstar faces of the franchise about to enter his prime? Has any Yankee fan favorite ever been allowed to leave the Bronx once he became a free agent?

[OH FOY]

I don't get that feeling.

 

I think one of the reasons Henry is such a smart and successful owner is that he never forgets where all the money is coming from - the fans.

 

The last thing he wants to do is save $20 million in payroll if it's going to cost him $50 million in revenue.

 

He's also smart if you develop, and save even more. Way, way, more. Fans will be pissed off, seen it happen before, Fisk, Lynn, Clemens, others.

But a nice little winning streak, and the Fans will show up again.

Its the Red Sox. They cover all of New England lot of territory.

Edited November 29, 2019 by OH FOY!

[harmony]

Sox have one advantage over all the teams in Boston, they have no competition, nothing but Baseball, in the summer. Fans will always show up, its generational.

If Boston had another ML Baseball team, then it would be interesting.

Maybe the Celtics if they get to Finals, now that that the NBA schedule seems to end in July now.

Other MLB markets have summer competition.

 

The Major League Soccer champion Seattle Sounders outdraw the Seattle Mariners, who play across the street. The Mariners also contend with two other thriving MLS franchises in their MLB market: the Portland Timbers and the Vancouver Whitecaps.

 

The New England Revolution provides relatively little competition for summer fans:

 

https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019-mls-attendance/

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Do you think the reason Manfred wants to collapse so many minor league teams isn't so much for more consolidated player development (as purported), but to force more hardball fans to attend more big league games by default?

[jad]

I never got that impression, but I’m sure if they could do that and make money, JH would be happy.

 

Here’s one thing about Boston market: we don’t do rebuilds...

 

Ha! Because we can end up in last place regardless?

[notin]

Ha! Because we can end up in last place regardless?

 

Yes but not by design...

[notin]

What I've been saying since I got here... the most difficult question for the suddenly money-conscious Red Sox: how can they possibly save without losing?

 

They can “save money” and still spend $200mill. Just because the team wants to get payroll under $208mill doesn’t mean we’re suddenly the Pittsburgh Pirates...

[notin]

Do you think the reason Manfred wants to collapse so many minor league teams isn't so much for more consolidated player development (as purported), but to force more hardball fans to attend more big league games by default?

 

No.

 

How many minor league teams have an MLB team close enough to be considered an entertainment alternative? And how often are the two teams affiliated to take advantage of fandom? The only team that might be able to take advantage is the Red Sox. And even then, only if the AA and AAA are closed...

[moonslav59]

If we go over the limit in 2020 by 10 or 20 mill it's not a big deal IMO. (Easy for me to say, I know.)

 

Let's say they go over by 15 mill. That's 7.5 mill in tax. Which would be less tax than they paid in 2018 or 2019.

 

My problem is with the idea that if we re-set in 2020 it will put us in great shape to sign Mookie. I really don't think so. If his demands are exorbitant, the re-set makes little difference.

 

The reset is more about the following years- Betts or no Betts. The tax goes from 50% to zero in 2020 and 50% to 20% in 2021 and 30% in 2022. All totaled it could amount to more than $30M over 3 years, which could be the difference between us keeping Betts or not-m or signing an "extra" FA to $10M x 3 years.

 

That's significant enough to be a goal to achieve,if not a "mandate."

 

If the plan might involve going $39M over in 2021, that's about $20M in savings in just one year.

 

Remember, if we keep Betts in 2020 and try to resign him for 2021 ans beyond, let's say for $35M a year, it's just adding about $7M a year oiver his arb contract of 2020. Using the $39M over mark, we could re-sign Betts and have $20M to spend on other FAs for 2021. We then look to see Pedey and others dropping off the rolls in the following years.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Lowell's only about a half hour far from Boston, as long you're driving there between midnight and morning rush hour. My sister used to drive to a train station, then take the commuter back and forth; still took about three travel hours per day. Ah, notin's right: just watch the big league games on TV...

[harmony]

This proposed three-way trade involving Mookie Betts lacks my endorsement:

 

https://sodomojo.com/2019/11/29/seattle-mariners-crazy-3-team-trade/

 

[Bellhorn04]

The reset is more about the following years- Betts or no Betts. The tax goes from 50% to zero in 2020 and 50% to 20% in 2021 and 30% in 2022. All totaled it could amount to more than $30M over 3 years, which could be the difference between us keeping Betts or not-m or signing an "extra" FA to $10M x 3 years.

 

That's significant enough to be a goal to achieve,if not a "mandate."

 

If the plan might involve going $39M over in 2021, that's about $20M in savings in just one year.

 

Your math is off. The difference between a 50% rate and a 20% rate is 30%.

 

That's part of the problem here - the math is a real challenge!

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

This proposed three-way trade involving Mookie Betts lacks my endorsement:

 

https://sodomojo.com/2019/11/29/seattle-mariners-crazy-3-team-trade/

 

 

What a joke, the usual let's-get-some-really-good-players for some-of-our-guys-who-are-not-as-good proposal (typical from a site titled FANsided).

 

Any Red Sox fan who has been following Noah Song the past few months knows he has vaulted to the top of their meager list of pitching prospects. Now if only Uncle Sam would cooperate...

[jacksonianmarch]

Your math is off. The difference between a 50% rate and a 20% rate is 30%.

 

That's part of the problem here - the math is a real challenge!

 

If you make the assumption that every dollar of a Mookie Betts deal is over the LT, then it is pretty easy to see the added baggage associated with the contract.

 

If the sox do not reset in 2020 and re-sign Mookie for $30 mil AAV and the sox finish 2021 $30 mil over the LT, then the added LT is $15 mil (there is also a surcharge for the second level, but that doesn't get increased for repeat offenders)

If the sox do reset in 2020 and re-sign Mookie for $30 mil AAV and the sox finish 2021 $30 mil over the LT, then the added LT is $6 mil (also not accounting for the surcharge)

 

Just on basic math, it is a $9 mil difference. That is a $9 mil PER YEAR difference based on a single contract.

[moonslav59]

Your math is off. The difference between a 50% rate and a 20% rate is 30%.

 

That's part of the problem here - the math is a real challenge!

 

Right.

 

The 30% "difference" would amount to about $12M not $20M, then year 2 would be $8M (30% not 50%). The total savings might max out at about $28M over the 2 years after the reset, assuming we get right up to the max line two years in a row without going over.

 

That's less than I suggested but still very significant.

[moonslav59]

If you make the assumption that every dollar of a Mookie Betts deal is over the LT, then it is pretty easy to see the added baggage associated with the contract.

 

If the sox do not reset in 2020 and re-sign Mookie for $30 mil AAV and the sox finish 2021 $30 mil over the LT, then the added LT is $15 mil (there is also a surcharge for the second level, but that doesn't get increased for repeat offenders)

If the sox do reset in 2020 and re-sign Mookie for $30 mil AAV and the sox finish 2021 $30 mil over the LT, then the added LT is $6 mil (also not accounting for the surcharge)

 

Just on basic math, it is a $9 mil difference. That is a $9 mil PER YEAR difference based on a single contract.

 

That might be enough to sign this guy named Porcello everyone wants.

[harmony]

What a joke, the usual let's-get-some-really-good-players for some-of-our-guys-who-are-not-as-good proposal (typical from a site titled FANsided).

 

Any Red Sox fan who has been following Noah Song the past few months knows he has vaulted to the top of their meager list of pitching prospects. Now if only Uncle Sam would cooperate...

Baseball Trade Values shows the Red Sox as the clear winners of the proposed trade, giving away a combined $55.3 million in surplus value in return for $64.3 million in surplus value:

 

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/trade-simulator/

 

The site's conclusion: "Not accepted. Oops! At least one team in this trade is not giving up as much value as they should be. Try balancing it out with either more players or cash"

[Bellhorn04]

If you make the assumption that every dollar of a Mookie Betts deal is over the LT, then it is pretty easy to see the added baggage associated with the contract.

 

If the sox do not reset in 2020 and re-sign Mookie for $30 mil AAV and the sox finish 2021 $30 mil over the LT, then the added LT is $15 mil (there is also a surcharge for the second level, but that doesn't get increased for repeat offenders)

If the sox do reset in 2020 and re-sign Mookie for $30 mil AAV and the sox finish 2021 $30 mil over the LT, then the added LT is $6 mil (also not accounting for the surcharge)

 

Just on basic math, it is a $9 mil difference. That is a $9 mil PER YEAR difference based on a single contract.

 

What do you mean, $9 mil per year?

 

Even if you re-set, your rate goes back up to 30% in year 2 and 50% in year 3 after the re-set.

 

You can only save for 2 years max.

[Bellhorn04]

Right.

 

The 30% "difference" would amount to about $12M not $20M, then year 2 would be $8M (30% not 50%). The total savings might max out at about $28M over the 2 years after the reset, assuming we get right up to the max line two years in a row without going over.

 

That's less than I suggested but still very significant.

 

Those amounts are significant, no question. And they could get you a worthwhile player or two, hopefully.

 

But they're not significant to the issue of signing Mookie or not.