Calling All Budgies - the Red Sox 2020 payroll thread

[notin]

Not much wiggle room, unless we dump Eovaldi or Price.

 

Would you deal Bradley for LHRP Justin Wilson and his $5mill AAV?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

While I do doubt they view Marisnick as the full time answer, I think they have some issues with other needs and limited budget that might prohibit trading for Bradley without dumping some cash back.

 

Now the Sox might be amenable to taking some cash back, as long as resetting is still within striking distance...

 

I'll bet Cora would take back Marisnick as part of a multi-player deal for JBJ...

[Bellhorn04]

I'll bet Cora would take back Marisnick as part of a multi-player deal for JBJ...

 

Man, are things so bad that we're talking about trading for a guy another team just traded for?

[S5Dewey]

Man, are things so bad that we're talking about trading for a guy another team just traded for?

 

It's the nature of TalkSox after a disappointing season.

[moonslav59]

Would you deal Bradley for LHRP Justin Wilson and his $5mill AAV?

 

No. I'm not a Wilson fan. His WHIP has been over 1.3 for the last couple years and over 1.29 for 4 straight. His K rate is good, but that's about it.

 

I'm dealing JBJ to save almost the full $11M.

 

I'm thinking, the more budget space we free up for bloom, the more opportunities he'll have to find those gems in the rough- multiple gems.

 

I've been swinging towards trading more salary than I felt a while back.

 

I'd look to trade Price, Eovaldi and JBJ this winter and look to trade Betts & JD at the deadline, assuming we are not in the race.

 

With the money freed up, Bloom can try to find a few "keepers" that might help beyond 2020 and a few bridge players to carry us to the reset 2021 season, where hopefully JH will open the wallet again.

[moonslav59]

I'll bet Cora would take back Marisnick as part of a multi-player deal for JBJ...

 

I like Marisnik. I've seen him play a lot. I think he's good for the clubhouse, too.

 

This trade was approved by the trade simulator:

 

JBJ, Eovaldi, Chavis, Walden & $3M for Marisnik, Matz & Jed Lowrie

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I like Marisnik. I've seen him play a lot. I think he's good for the clubhouse, too.

 

This trade was approved by the trade simulator:

 

JBJ, Eovaldi, Chavis, Walden & $3M for Marisnik, Matz & Jed Lowrie

 

I'd substitute Price and $25M for Nate -- if we're acquiring Matz, that's an all-lefty rotation. If the Sox really want to compete with the Yankees, we'll need a righty like Eovaldi who can get their righties out. On the trade site, I also had to take back Wilson and Ramos... and it said there was a "reasonable probability it would be accepted".

 

Of course, Ramos makes $7M, so then we'd have Vazquez at his peak value to swap for maybe a controllable pitcher, and then sign a defensive back-up backstop (hey, like Sandy).

 

At least we'd be rid of Price forever. I know people bemoan the Sale and Eovaldi contracts, but Price continues to be Dombrowski's signature albatross in Boston is so many ways...

[notin]

I'd substitute Price and $25M for Nate -- if we're acquiring Matz, that's an all-lefty rotation. If the Sox really want to compete with the Yankees, we'll need a righty like Eovaldi who can get their righties out. On the trade site, I also had to take back Wilson and Ramos... and it said there was a "reasonable probability it would be accepted".

 

Of course, Ramos makes $7M, so then we'd have Vazquez at his peak value to swap for maybe a controllable pitcher, and then sign a defensive back-up backstop (hey, like Sandy).

 

At least we'd be rid of Price forever. I know people bemoan the Sale and Eovaldi contracts, but Price continues to be Dombrowski's signature albatross in Boston is so many ways...

 

It would have to be someone "like Sandy" because Sandy is not a free agent

 

 

The problem with adding Price + $25mill is it almost negates the benefit of dealing Price, at least towards getting under the limit. Price is th worst contract of the bunch, but he is not a horrible pitcher, or even a horrible human being. He isn't the finest example, either. But one thing he is, is much more likely to show up for work than Eovaldi...

Edited December 10, 2019 by notin

[notin]

Man, are things so bad that we're talking about trading for a guy another team just traded for?

 

So you would be disappointed if the Sox traded for the just-traded Hunter Renfroe or Luis Urias?

[moonslav59]

It would have to be someone "like Sandy" because Sandy is not a free agent

 

 

The problem with adding Price + $25mill is it almost negates the benefit of dealing Price, at least towards getting under the limit. Price is th worst contract of the bunch, but he is not a horrible pitcher, or even a horrible human being. He isn't the finest example, either. But one thing he is, is much more likely to show up for work than Eovaldi...

 

$24M is $8M a year, so we'd still save a lot of money with the deal.

[iortiz]

This is why Bloom was hired – keeping us under the cap and competitive via Ted's TM statement: dumpster diving moves LOL!

[moonslav59]

This is why Bloom was hired – keeping us under the cap and competitive via Ted's TM statement: dumpster diving moves LOL!

 

Yes, but first he needs to create some space to do be able to work his magic.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It would have to be someone "like Sandy" because Sandy is not a free agent

 

 

The problem with adding Price + $25mill is it almost negates the benefit of dealing Price, at least towards getting under the limit. Price is th worst contract of the bunch, but he is not a horrible pitcher, or even a horrible human being. He isn't the finest example, either. But one thing he is, is much more likely to show up for work than Eovaldi...

 

In 2018, I actually enjoyed watching Price live in Baltimore shutting out a minor league offense, but he was horrible last season... at least watching him on TV was a horrible experience from an entertainment standpoint; Price is the perfect example of why modern baseball needs a pitch-clock (unless you're listening on a transistor radio trying to take a nap in a hammock or at the beach).

 

Also, all you need to know about Price is he's the one guy Yankee fans that post on Red Sox forums keep insisting is untradeable -- because they're hoping he's not traded (and for the opposite reason, they'd much rather see Eovaldi traded).

[jad]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28230845/why-signing-free-agents-paying-never-before

 

I love this article. After going through all the figures, and providing minute and very interesting analysis, the one question it seems not to answer is: "Wait ... so ... does this mean we SHOULD re-sign our pending free agents? ... or ..." You know. Like real world questions!

[Bellhorn04]

So you would be disappointed if the Sox traded for the just-traded Hunter Renfroe or Luis Urias?

 

It's not a question of disappointment. It's a question of the likelihood of a player like Marisnick or Renfroe being flipped. To me it seems even less likely than some of the other trade proposals being drawn up. I think I'm just getting trade proposal fatigue, especially because nothing is actually happening.

[Bellhorn04]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28230845/why-signing-free-agents-paying-never-before

 

I love this article. After going through all the figures, and providing minute and very interesting analysis, the one question it seems not to answer is: "Wait ... so ... does this mean we SHOULD re-sign our pending free agents? ... or ..." You know. Like real world questions!

 

The point of the article seems to be that in recent years, free agents signing with new teams have been succeeding at a higher rate than they were before. They're adapting better or some such thing.

[jad]

The point of the article seems to be that in recent years, free agents signing with new teams have been succeeding at a higher rate than they were before. They're adapting better or some such thing.

 

Right. But there's no comparison to, say, those pending free agents who took a long-term contract w/ their home teams, nor any real analysis of the problem: "Suppose player X will perform at Y-level if you resign him; if you let him go, he will perform at Y+1 for someone else. Do you match the other team's offer?" (i.e., is it better to overpay him to play for you, or to let him play for a competitor who will get full value out of him?) I guess this is why the GM's office is full of people scratching their heads hoping they guess right.

[jacksonianmarch]

Bloom reiterated that getting under the LT was a goal. Not surprised

[S5Dewey]

Bloom reiterated that getting under the LT was a goal. Not surprised

 

The more the FO says it the the more it sounds like, "We intend for the team payroll to start moving downward. If it goes below the LT limit, so much the better."

[moonslav59]

If we don't reset, IMO, the likelihood of going significantly over the tax line in the next few years is greatly reduced.

[notin]

The more the FO says it the the more it sounds like, "We intend for the team payroll to start moving downward. If it goes below the LT limit, so much the better."

 

Or “we will get payroll to a point where we can easily get under the limit if the season gets out of hand before July 31.”

[moonslav59]

Or “we will get payroll to a point where we can easily get under the limit if the season gets out of hand before July 31.”

 

It's "there", now.

 

However, we have 3-4 holes to fill.

[Bellhorn04]

If we don't reset, IMO, the likelihood of going significantly over the tax line in the next few years is greatly reduced.

 

If they do re-set in 2020 and go over in 2021 and 2022, presumably they'd be right back in the same position of wanting to re-set in 2023. Which means they would have to be very careful about the long-term commitments in 2021 and 2022. Sort of a Catch-22, isn't it?

 

Also, the current CBA expires at the end of 2021, and everything after that is kind of up in the air.

 

Just pointing out that there's nothing simple about any of it...

[moonslav59]

If they do re-set in 2020 and go over in 2021 and 2022, presumably they'd be right back in the same position of wanting to re-set in 2023. Which means they would have to be very careful about the long-term commitments in 2021 and 2022. Sort of a Catch-22, isn't it?

 

Also, the current CBA expires at the end of 2021, and everything after that is kind of up in the air.

 

Just pointing out that there's nothing simple about any of it...

 

Yes, it seems like the ideal formula would be to reset every 3 years, so you never pay the 50% tax.

 

I have to think, with proper planning, you should be able to spend $39M over the line for 2 years in a row, then $1M under the line every 3 years and remain pretty damn good almost every year.

[OH FOY]

Or “we will get payroll to a point where we can easily get under the limit if the season gets out of hand before July 31.”

 

Like it, good philosophy. At the limit if your good at evaluating, you should be Fielding a good team.

[moonslav59]

Like it, good philosophy. At the limit if your good at evaluating, you should be Fielding a good team.

 

True, but Bloom was given a roster short on depth and a few key positions that started above the limit.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, it seems like the ideal formula would be to reset every 3 years, so you never pay the 50% tax.

 

I have to think, with proper planning, you should be able to spend $39M over the line for 2 years in a row, then $1M under the line every 3 years and remain pretty damn good almost every year.

 

In theory that's possible, but in reality I think you're more likely to end up in the position we're in right now, scrambling to cut payroll to get under the line in the third year.

 

To me it would make more sense to hover around the first tax threshold each year like we used to before 2018.

[S5Dewey]

Yes, it seems like the ideal formula would be to reset every 3 years, so you never pay the 50% tax.

 

I have to think, with proper planning, you should be able to spend $39M over the line for 2 years in a row, then $1M under the line every 3 years and remain pretty damn good almost every year.

 

That seems like a nice idea... until you think about what it means. It means that a two-year run is probably out of the question because the smart thing to do is to trade your key players while they're at their highest value.

 

2016 - 93/69

2017 - 93/69 (two respectable building seasons)

2018 - 108/54, A WSC, right on schedule and the players are at their peak.

 

The question now is, do you want to shoot for back-to-back, or trade key players away to stay with the plan?

[moonslav59]

That seems like a nice idea... until you think about what it means. It means that a two-year run is probably out of the question because the smart thing to do is to trade your key players while they're at their highest value.

 

2016 - 93/69

2017 - 93/69 (two respectable building seasons)

2018 - 108/54, A WSC, right on schedule and the players are at their peak.

 

The question now is, do you want to shoot for back-to-back, or trade key players away to stay with the plan?

 

Well, in an ideal world, you'd have a key contract or two run out every 3 years. If your farm is decent, you can fill those holes from within and stay somewhat competitive that reset year. Remember, spending $1M under the line should still afford you a good chance at winning, as long as you have no big dud contracts dragging you down.

 

I never said it would be easy, but spending large 2 of 3 years and still spending big that reset year should be a recipe for continued success. Just don't ever trade the farm away, again, and try not to sign the next David Price or Eovaldi. (Easier said than done, I know.)

[moonslav59]

That seems like a nice idea... until you think about what it means. It means that a two-year run is probably out of the question because the smart thing to do is to trade your key players while they're at their highest value.

 

2016 - 93/69

2017 - 93/69 (two respectable building seasons)

2018 - 108/54, A WSC, right on schedule and the players are at their peak.

 

The question now is, do you want to shoot for back-to-back, or trade key players away to stay with the plan?

 

It appears, in hindsight, like we should have reset in 2019, but the plan I mentioned calls for a 2020 reset, since we reset in 2017 (a 93 win season, I might add).