Bloom move your asssssss

[notin]

We still haven't seen the real proof that it's a mandate to get below 208.

 

We've certainly seen that it's a mandate to curb spending.

 

 

And we know why they are clearly curbing spending - the goal is a reset. If they can extend Betts, a reset in the near future is NOT very likely.

 

Here’s what I don’t get. A lot of fans want the Sox to hold Betts for “one last shot” at a World Series. But if you think the team is good enough to win it all with Betts, why do these same people think that if Betts gets traded, the Sox need to blow this team up and start over? 5GoldGloves even suggested that the Sox should trade Devers in a full scale rebuild. Huh?

 

Devers, who is 22 with 4 years of control left, is a player you rebuild around...

[notin]

15 full seasons, I think.

 

17 full seasons. Plus his first year when he took overmidway.

 

I looked it up finally.

[moonslav59]

Because it’s still a good team lead by CHRIS FREAKIN’ SALE

 

Good but not highly competitive with Joc in RF over Betts.

[moonslav59]

I’d purge anyone with two years of control or less who aren’t willing or aren’t good enough to extend.

 

It would be the quickest and surest way to get back on top, but too many fans might revolt.

 

We could look to bring Betts & maybe JD back in 2021. The hardest one to part with, to me, would be Betts and ERod.

 

Here are the 1 & 2 year control players:

 

1

Betts

JBJ

Workman

JD (opt out likely)

 

2

Pedroia (not trading)

ERod

Barnes

Hembree

 

3 (Not a big part of 2022 plans)

Price

Eovaldi

JD (if no opt out)

[moonslav59]

Betts is the Sox best player, but trading isn’t necessarily a white flag. The Sox did not get equal value for Nomar and won the World Series that year. They didn’t even come close to getting anything worthwhile for AGon, but won the next year anyway.

 

Price might be tougher to replace than Betts, at least for 2020.

 

Nomar was far from being our best player, at the time of the trade.

[moonslav59]

No, the draft implications come in if you exceed the first threshold by 40 million, regardless of whether it's the first time or tenth time in a row.

 

What about IFA pool money?

[notin]

Nomar was far from being our best player, at the time of the trade.

 

But he was the Sox best position player in 2002 and 2003 by fWAR, and trailed only Pedro. Don’t put too much on his injury-riddled 38 games in 2004 (in which he somehow posted a .867 OPS).

 

If we play that game, Betts wasn’t the Sox best player last year...

[notin]

Good but not highly competitive with Joc in RF over Betts.

 

I think most ppl are assuming Joc is a throw-in to offset some cash and not a principle component of that trade.

 

 

After all, he is a better throw-in than AJ Pollock for multiple reasons...

[Bellhorn04]

What about IFA pool money?

 

Here it is:

 

Beginning in the 2017-18 offseason, any team that is over the luxury tax threshold and signs a Major League free agent that has rejected a qualifying offer will lose $1 million from their international signing pool in the following signing period. A team that is not over the luxury tax would only forfeit $500,000 of its signing pool in the subsequent period.

 

So once again, this has nothing to do with the number of times in a row you've exceeded the threshold.

[Bellhorn04]

And we know why they are clearly curbing spending - the goal is a reset. If they can extend Betts, a reset in the near future is NOT very likely.

 

Here’s what I don’t get. A lot of fans want the Sox to hold Betts for “one last shot” at a World Series. But if you think the team is good enough to win it all with Betts, why do these same people think that if Betts gets traded, the Sox need to blow this team up and start over? 5GoldGloves even suggested that the Sox should trade Devers in a full scale rebuild. Huh?

 

Devers, who is 22 with 4 years of control left, is a player you rebuild around...

 

Here's what 5GoldGloves said. The scenario starts with Mookie agreeing to an extension.

 

But what if the Sox make an offer that Betts agrees to? It would still be contingent upon the reset, which would likely mean moving a high-priced pitcher and JBJ. Then they'd have to replace at least a starter and an outfielder -- hopefully with young controllables that could help restock depth and sustain contention. At that point, it may be practical instead to deal the one Red Sox with the most trade value: Devers. I hope not, because the kid looks like he could develop into a lefty combo of Cabrera/Beltre...

[moonslav59]

But he was the Sox best position player in 2002 and 2003 by fWAR, and trailed only Pedro. Don’t put too much on his injury-riddled 38 games in 2004 (in which he somehow posted a .867 OPS).

 

If we play that game, Betts wasn’t the Sox best player last year...

 

Nomar was not our best player in 2004. Betts is our best player, today.

[moonslav59]

I think most ppl are assuming Joc is a throw-in to offset some cash and not a principle component of that trade.

 

 

After all, he is a better throw-in than AJ Pollock for multiple reasons...

 

He's better, mainly because he has just one year left. The financial offset is not enough to entice the Dodgers to

 

1) say yes

 

2) include something else useful.

 

This is not an option: Betts + Price for Joc alone.

 

If we trade Betts + Price for Pollock or Joc, we might as well trade JBJ, JD and Workman, too.

 

Shoot for 2021 by maybe bring back Betts (JD?) or spending large elsewhere.

 

To me, we are barely a contender in 2020, as is. Trading Betts tilts the balance to me thinking it's best to just trade all short term players and look to 2021 and beyond.

[Bellhorn04]

But he was the Sox best position player in 2002 and 2003 by fWAR, and trailed only Pedro. Don’t put too much on his injury-riddled 38 games in 2004 (in which he somehow posted a .867 OPS).

 

But we do have to put a lot on those injury-riddled 38 games. He had a mysterious injury, his defense had deteriorated shockingly, and to top it off he seemed to have a malcontent attitude.

[moonslav59]

Here it is:

 

Beginning in the 2017-18 offseason, any team that is over the luxury tax threshold and signs a Major League free agent that has rejected a qualifying offer will lose $1 million from their international signing pool in the following signing period. A team that is not over the luxury tax would only forfeit $500,000 of its signing pool in the subsequent period.

 

So once again, this has nothing to do with the number of times in a row you've exceeded the threshold.

 

Yes, but resetting in 2020 would help us spend large in 2021 without hurting the IFA money, right?

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, but resetting in 2020 would help us spend large in 2021 without hurting the IFA money, right?

 

No.

[moonslav59]

But we do have to put a lot on those injury-riddled 38 games. He had a mysterious injury, his defense had deteriorated shockingly, and to top it off he seemed to have a malcontent attitude.

 

He was also lying about how and when he got hurt, and the Sox did not challenge that.

 

Nomar was a minus defender at a critical position.

 

He was a cancer in the clubhouse.

 

He needed to go. We needed a real SS.

 

We got one: we won.

Edited January 4, 2020 by moonslav59

[Bellhorn04]

The other benefit of re-setting which Speier explained in his analysis (the one about the $100 million savings) has to do with a revenue-sharing penalty that is separate from the luxury tax itself.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not saying that a re-set in 2020 wouldn't be beneficial. Obviously it would. But I think the benefits are being exaggerated a bit.

 

If we end up 20 million over the 208 for 2020, we pay 10 million tax. That's actually less tax than in 2018 or 2019.

 

And JDM and JBJ would likely both be gone after 2020, so that's 33 million or so gone for 2021 right there.

[moonslav59]

No.

 

If we are looking to be contenders in 2021 and beyond, we can use all the help we can get.

 

The IFA market used to be a big reason our farm was good to great.

 

HRam & Anibal Sanchez (Got us Beckett & Lowell)

Doubront

Dice-K

Okajima

Tazawa

Bogaerts

Iggy (Got us Peavy)

Montas

J Aro

Lin

Matgot (Helped get us Kimbrel)

G Bautista (Helped get us A Reed)

Devers

D Hernandez

Moncada (Helped us get Sale)

Espinoza (Got us Pomeranz)

 

Since we got DD:

Hector Velazquez

 

[moonslav59]

I'm not saying that a re-set in 2020 wouldn't be beneficial. Obviously it would. But I think the benefits are being exaggerated a bit.

 

If we end up 20 million over the 208 for 2020, we pay 10 million tax. That's actually less tax than in 2018 or 2019.

 

And JDM and JBJ would likely both be gone after 2020, so that's 33 million or so gone for 2021 right there.

 

Rising arb costs and resigning or replacing Betts would disallow a reset in 2021.

[Bellhorn04]

Rising arb costs and resigning or replacing Betts would disallow a reset in 2021.

 

Not necessarily, if they trade Price.

[Bellhorn04]

Mookie's projected 2020 salary is 27.5 mill. If he signs the same deal as Trout his 2021 AAV would be 35.5 mill, so an increment of 8 mill.

[moonslav59]

Not necessarily, if they trade Price.

 

He'd have to have a big year in 2020 to get someone to pay enough to make up the difference. If he does have a nice 2020 season, then we'll have a lot to replace.

 

Betts's raise will likely be 75% of what we save when JBJ bolts.

[Bellhorn04]

He'd have to have a big year in 2020 to get someone to pay enough to make up the difference.

 

I meant trading him before this season starts.

[moonslav59]

We are not going to get someone to pay $18-20M/yr for Price. We have to trade Price and JBJ to reset and keep Betts for 2020.

 

I'm fine with that, but only if we end up keeping Betts. Losing Betts and getting nothing in return is the worst case scenario and badly hurts our rebuilding timetable.

 

I want Betts in the Sox future as much or more than anyone, but I think the fixation on trying for one last gasp in 2020 and projection the appearance that we will be strong 2020 contenders may slow or prevent us from getting back on top in the next 3-5 years. I'm thinking we should probably look to shorten the down time to as little as maybe one year by resetting, getting what we can for 1 year players and then going back to spending large in 2021 by bringing back Betts along with other key signings and trades that may get us back to being high contenders in 1-2 years not 3-5, if that.

 

It's not an easy choice to make, and there's a lot of complexities to consider.

[moonslav59]

I meant trading him before this season starts.

 

And save $19M?

[Bellhorn04]

And save $19M?

 

Ideally, yes. Maybe a bit less.

[moonslav59]

Ideally, yes. Maybe a bit less.

 

We need to save $19M to reset- more based on what some sources claim.

 

JBJ needs to go, too.

[Bellhorn04]

We need to save $19M to reset- more based on what some sources claim.

 

JBJ needs to go, too.

 

But my whole argument is about re-setting in 2021.

 

No Price, no JDM, no JBJ.

[moonslav59]

But my whole argument is about re-setting in 2021.

 

No Price, no JDM, no JBJ.

 

What's the advantage? A 2020 ring?

 

We'll be better off spending large in 2021 than not.