The 2021-2022 Offseason Thread

[Bellhorn04]

If the bullpen is always the first place to look when you want to save money , then it probably is not high on your list of priorities. And it should be. As I said before, a close game will almost certainly come down to a battle of the bullpens.

 

But the people who say most relievers vary like crazy from one year to the next are also right. We invested money in Barnes last year and he turned to crap right after that. Spending doesn't guarantee a thing.

[moonslav59]

By Rob Bradford

 

 

This day - when teams can officially start signing international prospects - sometimes goes under the radar. But considering it usually spawns some of Major League Baseball's biggest stars, it shouldn't.

 

It's why news of the Red Sox maneuvering on Day 1 of the signing period should be of some note.

 

According to MLB.com, the Sox have agreed to terms with two of the top shortstop prospects in the international class, allocating significant signing bonuses for Freili Encarnacion ($1.2 million) and Fraymi De Leon ($1.1 million), both of who hail from the Dominican Republic.

 

 

Per WEEI: The Sox also reportedly have come to terms with highly-regarded Venezuelan catcher Johanfran Garcia (approximately $650,000).

 

Lets hope they all pan out and become major leaguers.

 

Great news!

[moonslav59]

But the people who say most relievers vary like crazy from one year to the next are also right. We invested money in Barnes last year and he turned to crap right after that. Spending doesn't guarantee a thing.

 

Barnes' extension starts in 2022. He may yet earn it, but yes, no guarantees, especially with RP'er.

[dgalehouse]

Other than a few of the top guys , pitchers can be somewhat unpredictable from year to year . Probably due to various arm ailments , among other things. I think this applies to starters as much as it does relievers. When you sign any free agent , there are no money back guarantees. Sometimes you just have to take a shot. No guts , no glory.

[moonslav59]

Other than a few of the top guys , pitchers can be somewhat unpredictable from year to year . Probably due to various arm ailments , among other things. I think this applies to starters as much as it does relievers. When you sign any free agent , there are no money back guarantees. Sometimes you just have to take a shot. No guts , no glory.

 

Yes, SP'ers are pretty hit and miss, too. Everyday players, as well, but I think RP'er lead the pack in let downs and poor results.

[notin]

But the people who say most relievers vary like crazy from one year to the next are also right. We invested money in Barnes last year and he turned to crap right after that. Spending doesn't guarantee a thing.

 

The only teams in the past 20 years to have the highest payroll and win a World Series are the 2009 Yankees and 2018 Red Sox…

[notin]

Yes, SP'ers are pretty hit and miss, too. Everyday players, as well, but I think RP'er lead the pack in let downs and poor results.

 

 

The reason many relievers have a reputation for being more volatile is teams carry a lot of them and the primary reason they have the job is most are not good enough to be starters.

 

As the Sox look now, the rotation appears to be a bigger concern than the bullpen. And of course the lineup is incomplete, but that’s more on the lockout…

[moonslav59]

The reason many relievers have a reputation for being more volatile is teams carry a lot of them and the primary reason they have the job is most are not good enough to be starters.

 

As the Sox look now, the rotation appears to be a bigger concern than the bullpen. And of course the lineup is incomplete, but that’s more on the lockout…

 

The statement that RP'ers are not good enough to be starters is still somewhat true, but the balance is shifting. One could say Houck and Whitlock are our best two pitchers.

 

The slots for Houck and Whitlock will determine which area is in greater need. Even with both in the pen, our pen sucks after those two. (The rotation looks two deep, too.)

Edited January 16, 2022 by moonslav59

[moonslav59]

The only teams in the past 20 years to have the highest payroll and win a World Series are the 2009 Yankees and 2018 Red Sox…

 

With 30 teams, that actually shows money helps.

 

How many second and third highest paying teams won it all?

 

How many bottom 5 or 10 won it all?

[notin]

With 30 teams, that actually shows money helps.

 

How many second and third highest paying teams won it all?

 

How many bottom 5 or 10 won it all?

 

In the last 21 World Series:

 

Top Ten Payrolls: 11

Middle Ten: 9

Bottom Ten: 1

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The statement that RP'ers are not good enough to be starters is still somewhat true, but the balance is shifting. One could say Houck and Whitlock are our best two pitchers.

 

Even with modern usage of starters, would the Sox be better on the mound if both anchored the rotation? Five innings of Houck one day, plus five from Whitlock the next vs. maybe five per week spread out over a six or seven-game span from the bullpen? A decent rotation could consist of these two young hopefuls, an improved Sale, with Eovaldi and Pivetta not regressing (the vets added before the lockout would just be what they really are: depth pieces or place-holders).

 

No matter what, Bloom will have to add some reliable relievers, but they won't come from free agency or be established names. Discovery and development of the next Whitlock will most likely come from trades or promotions.

[oldtimer]

With 30 teams, that actually shows money helps.

 

How many second and third highest paying teams won it all?

 

How many bottom 5 or 10 won it all?

 

There have been no repeat WS winners in over 20 year. The Sox have the most in that span while the Giants have the most since 2010. Some of the CBT and its penalties appear to be working.

[notin]

Even with modern usage of starters, would the Sox be better on the mound if both anchored the rotation? Five innings of Houck one day, plus five from Whitlock the next vs. maybe five per week spread out over a six or seven-game span from the bullpen? A decent rotation could consist of these two young hopefuls, an improved Sale, with Eovaldi and Pivetta not regressing (the vets added before the lockout would just be what they really are: depth pieces or place-holders).

 

No matter what, Bloom will have to add some reliable relievers, but they won't come from free agency or be established names. Discovery and development of the next Whitlock will most likely come from trades or promotions.

 

 

Why not free agency?

 

RP is the one position where 1-2 year deals are not only common, they’re practically the only option. With no over commitment, why not sign a RP or two?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Why not free agency?

 

RP is the one position where 1-2 year deals are not only common, they’re practically the only option. With no over commitment, why not sign a RP or two?

 

I'm not opposed to it, but Bloom may be... a year ago, he didn't sign any of the many "established" bullpen arms on the market, except one who was ok in Japan (by most accounts a lesser league). Bloom also didn't acquire any relievers making decent money who were available at the trade deadline. Somehow, he was able to fend off the pressure to cave by fans, scribes, and mainly, us (except our no-thank-yous to Kimbrel).

 

When the MLB is ever unlocked, a guy like Joe Kelly would be exactly the type that could improve the Sox late-inning corps. But does anyone here think Bloom will offer an LA contract? Will Kelly even consider taking less to leave home again to return to the Least Coast?

[moonslav59]

There have been no repeat WS winners in over 20 year. The Sox have the most in that span while the Giants have the most since 2010. Some of the CBT and its penalties appear to be working.

 

How many bottom 5 or even 10 spending teams have won in the last 10-20 years?

[moonslav59]

MLB Champions and Spending Ranking

 

Year Team Opening Day Payroll

2021 Braves 15th

2020 Dodgers 1st

2019 Nationals 3rd

2018 Red Sox 1st

2017 Astros 12th

2016 Cubs 4th

2015 Royals 12th

2014 Giants 10th

2013 Red Sox 3rd

2012 Giants 8th

2011 Cardinals 11th

2010 Giants 10th

2009 Yankees 1st

2008 Phillies 14th

2007 Red Sox 2nd

2006 Cardinals 11th

2005 White Sox 13th

2004 Red Sox 2nd

2003 Marlins 25th

2002 Angels 15th

2001 D-backs 8th

2000 Yankees 1st

1999 Yankees 1st

1998 Yankees 2nd

1997 Marlins 7th

1996 Yankees 1st

1995 Braves 3rd

 

Since 1995, only one team below #15 in spending has won a championship- the 2003 Marlins.

 

Only 5 of the 27 teams were ranked below #12. That is 60% of all MLB teams (18/30.)

 

You basically have to be a top 40% spending team to have a good chance at winning. Five out of 27 times is less than a 19% chance for 60% of all MLB teams combined.

 

13 out of the last 27 winning teams were a top 4 spender.

12 of the last 27 were top 3 spenders.

8 of 27 were top 2 spenders.

 

No bottom 5 team has won a ring in a long time, maybe for several decades.

 

 

[S5Dewey]

MLB Champions and Spending Ranking

 

Year Team Opening Day Payroll

2021 Braves 15th

2020 Dodgers 1st

2019 Nationals 3rd

2018 Red Sox 1st

2017 Astros 12th

2016 Cubs 4th

2015 Royals 12th

2014 Giants 10th

2013 Red Sox 3rd

2012 Giants 8th

2011 Cardinals 11th

2010 Giants 10th

2009 Yankees 1st

2008 Phillies 14th

2007 Red Sox 2nd

2006 Cardinals 11th

2005 White Sox 13th

2004 Red Sox 2nd

2003 Marlins 25th

2002 Angels 15th

2001 D-backs 8th

2000 Yankees 1st

1999 Yankees 1st

1998 Yankees 2nd

1997 Marlins 7th

1996 Yankees 1st

1995 Braves 3rd

 

Since 1995, only one team below #15 in spending has won a championship- the 2003 Marlins.

 

Only 5 of the 27 teams were ranked below #12. That is 60% of all MLB teams (18/30.)

 

You basically have to be a top 40% spending team to have a good chance at winning. Five out of 27 times is less than a 19% chance for 60% of all MLB teams combined.

 

13 out of the last 27 winning teams were a top 4 spender.

12 of the last 27 were top 3 spenders.

8 of 27 were top 2 spenders.

 

No bottom 5 team has won a ring in a long time, maybe for several decades.

 

 

 

But tying the WSC to the opening day payroll is a bit misleading. A better figure would be where a team has finished and what they've spent in the 10 years previous to the WSC.

 

Looking your list over (and admittedly not having done the research) I see several 'rags to riches' teams over the ten years previous to their WSC. Possibly not cellar dwellers but close to the bottom of their division.

 

IMO this reinforces what Old Timer was implying, that the CBT and draft pick allocation by MLB is working. Teams that are trying to win are getting the CBT money and draft picks to improve their teams. By the time they're getting close to be WS caliber they have established and more expensive players. That's also when they loosen the purse strings more and pay the free agents.

[notin]

But tying the WSC to the opening day payroll is a bit misleading. A better figure would be where a team has finished and what they've spent in the 10 years previous to the WSC.

 

Looking your list over (and admittedly not having done the research) I see several 'rags to riches' teams over the ten years previous to their WSC. Possibly not cellar dwellers but close to the bottom of their division.

 

IMO this reinforces what Old Timer was implying, that the CBT and draft pick allocation by MLB is working. Teams that are trying to win are getting the CBT money and draft picks to improve their teams. By the time they're getting close to be WS caliber they have established and more expensive players. That's also when they loosen the purse strings more and pay the free agents.

 

That’s an interesting perspective. I might think of shortening the spending length to 5 or 6 years, but along the same line.

 

And like you, I’m not going to do the research, but I agree with the principle…

[Bellhorn04]

MLB Champions and Spending Ranking

 

Year Team Opening Day Payroll

2021 Braves 15th

2020 Dodgers 1st

2019 Nationals 3rd

2018 Red Sox 1st

2017 Astros 12th

2016 Cubs 4th

2015 Royals 12th

2014 Giants 10th

2013 Red Sox 3rd

2012 Giants 8th

2011 Cardinals 11th

2010 Giants 10th

2009 Yankees 1st

2008 Phillies 14th

2007 Red Sox 2nd

2006 Cardinals 11th

2005 White Sox 13th

2004 Red Sox 2nd

2003 Marlins 25th

2002 Angels 15th

2001 D-backs 8th

2000 Yankees 1st

1999 Yankees 1st

1998 Yankees 2nd

1997 Marlins 7th

1996 Yankees 1st

1995 Braves 3rd

 

Since 1995, only one team below #15 in spending has won a championship- the 2003 Marlins.

 

Only 5 of the 27 teams were ranked below #12. That is 60% of all MLB teams (18/30.)

 

You basically have to be a top 40% spending team to have a good chance at winning. Five out of 27 times is less than a 19% chance for 60% of all MLB teams combined.

 

13 out of the last 27 winning teams were a top 4 spender.

12 of the last 27 were top 3 spenders.

8 of 27 were top 2 spenders.

 

No bottom 5 team has won a ring in a long time, maybe for several decades.

 

 

This certainly shows that teams who are in the lower third of spending have little chance.

 

OTOH it's interesting that over the last 20 years, 11 of the champs were 10th in spending or lower.

[notin]

How many bottom 5 or even 10 spending teams have won in the last 10-20 years?

 

1.

 

The 2003 Marlins...

[moonslav59]

This certainly shows that teams who are in the lower third of spending have little chance.

 

OTOH it's interesting that over the last 20 years, 11 of the champs were 10th in spending or lower.

 

10 of those 11 were 10-15th.

 

26 out of 27 were 1st to 15th.

[moonslav59]

1.

 

The 2003 Marlins...

 

Bottom 10 but not bottom 5, yes.

[moonslav59]

But tying the WSC to the opening day payroll is a bit misleading. A better figure would be where a team has finished and what they've spent in the 10 years previous to the WSC.

 

Looking your list over (and admittedly not having done the research) I see several 'rags to riches' teams over the ten years previous to their WSC. Possibly not cellar dwellers but close to the bottom of their division.

 

IMO this reinforces what Old Timer was implying, that the CBT and draft pick allocation by MLB is working. Teams that are trying to win are getting the CBT money and draft picks to improve their teams. By the time they're getting close to be WS caliber they have established and more expensive players. That's also when they loosen the purse strings more and pay the free agents.

 

I'm not seeing that with the teams on this list. Most are habitual big spenders or top 10-15 almost every year.

 

The Astros took a different approach that ended up working, but they did not have a very long stretch of low budget teams.

 

I do see the rules keeping some of the higher spending teams from going nutty, but it's not really helping the habitually, lowest spending teams, except to pay their owners with revenue sharing and higher bonus share spending for draftees and IFS signings that rarely help them even come close to winning a ring.

[moonslav59]

That’s an interesting perspective. I might think of shortening the spending length to 5 or 6 years, but along the same line.

 

And like you, I’m not going to do the research, but I agree with the principle…

 

The Astros and Cubs might be the two teams that intentionally tanked to plan for bigger spending later and an improved chance at winning a ring within a given window.

 

It worked for both teams.

 

We point to the Marlins team as the example of winning on a low budget, but they had some big salary players on those teams near their winning seasons. The built up and tore down at least twice.

 

The Royals and Twins seemed to plan for cycles back in the day. Neither looks to compete in the near future.

 

The Rays and A's seem like the only two current teams that can win without spending on a consistent or semi-consistent basis, but neither has a ring to show for their gallant efforts.

[notin]

The Astros and Cubs might be the two teams that intentionally tanked to plan for bigger spending later and an improved chance at winning a ring within a given window.

 

It worked for both teams.

 

We point to the Marlins team as the example of winning on a low budget, but they had some big salary players on those teams near their winning seasons. The built up and tore down at least twice.

 

The Royals and Twins seemed to plan for cycles back in the day. Neither looks to compete in the near future.

 

The 2003 Marlins had a payroll in the 24-26 range, depending on your source. They’re a clear outlier in the spending vs winning, and really just exist to show that it’s possible if you draft right and trade for good prospects and they all come along and develop at once…

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Two teams that maybe didn't tank intentionally, but definitely built historic winners are San Fran this century and Atlanta at the end of the last one.

 

The Giants had three consecutive top ten picks – Lincecum, Bumgarner and Posey – all key members of title teams. The Braves had six top six picks in succession, and four played on the ’95 champs, including Jones, their number one overall selection. As for their three Cy Young pitchers, the Braves drafted Glavine (2nd round), traded for Smoltz when he was a prospect, and signed Maddux as a 26-year-old free agent after his first Cy with the Cubs. He then won three more Cy Young Awards in a row...

[moonslav59]

The 2003 Marlins had a payroll in the 24-26 range, depending on your source. They’re a clear outlier in the spending vs winning, and really just exist to show that it’s possible if you draft right and trade for good prospects and they all come along and develop at once…

 

Yes, and even they were not a bottom 5 spending team, which have not won in a very very long time.

 

The Marlins were not always in the 24-26th place area back around 2003, but that year, they were.

 

They were clearly the outlier.

 

Other teams have remained competitive for long periods of time, while spending little, but getting over the championship hump has remained ellusive to the Rays, A's and other teams like them.

 

The Royals have been notorious for low budgets, but they went up to 12th the year they won it all. Maybe that's what the A's and Rays could do- just once. (Doubt it happens, though.)

[Nick]

I would think end of year payroll is just as good if not better. It takes into account trade deadline acquisitions.

 

But good work Moon.

 

It's interesting to note that it was widely believed Cubs won a year early. There was talk (as always it seems) of dynasty. Cubs and Theo spent the money just to do that.

 

Their end of year payroll went from $181M in 2016 to $186M, $198M and $220M. Obviously there was no dynasty let alone a repeat.

 

On paper, Sox had good starting rotation going into 2019 but that season was derailed by injuries and other factors (I don't remember).

 

I think the whole point is it is somewhat crapshoot but spending consistently will get you closer than not doing so.

[moonslav59]

Two teams that maybe didn't tank intentionally, but definitely built historic winners are San Fran this century and Atlanta at the end of the last one.

 

The Giants had three consecutive top ten picks – Lincecum, Bumgarner and Posey – all key members of title teams. The Braves had six top six picks in succession, and four played on the ’95 champs, including Jones, their number one overall selection. As for their three Cy Young pitchers, the Braves drafted Glavine (2nd round), traded for Smoltz when he was a prospect, and signed Maddux as a 26-year-old free agent after his first Cy with the Cubs. He then won three more Cy Young Awards in a row...

 

The Astros tanked, too. They drafted well in that period and then spent much more money.

 

The Rays were super bad for a while, drafted Price and others, but never really spent big and never won the big one.

[moonslav59]

I would think end of year payroll is just as good if not better. It takes into account trade deadline acquisitions.

 

But good work Moon.

 

It's interesting to note that it was widely believed Cubs won a year early. There was talk (as always it seems) of dynasty. Cubs and Theo spent the money just to do that.

 

Their end of year payroll went from $181M in 2016 to $186M, $198M and $220M. Obviously there was no dynasty let alone a repeat.

 

On paper, Sox had good starting rotation going into 2019 but that season was derailed by injuries and other factors (I don't remember).

 

I think the whole point is it is somewhat crapshoot but spending consistently will get you closer than not doing so.

 

Where do you find year end budgets over the last 20-25 years?