The 2023 Red Sox Budget

[notin]

You are giving Sale to much credit to last until mid-May.

 

I was assuming a “bunch of extras.” He might have to wait out a couple others…

[Old Red]

I hope Eovaldi takes the QO. Risky as heck but so are most pricey pitchers.

 

I would rather see a trade for someone younger, and less expensive. $19M+ takes up a lot of the budget.

[Hugh2]

What’s leading the league in anything in 2021 got to do with now. Was he as good last year when he wasn’t hurt, and now he two years older than 2021.

 

He’s still in his early 30’s. I thought I read somewhere Eovaldi didn’t have a normal

Off-season last year. Maybe that’s what led to his lower back injury, before that he looked great. With a normal offseason he could easily return to form. Sox know his medical position more than any of us and they were comfortable extending him a QO.

 

Everything always comes down to price tag, if Eovaldi can get 4/65 I probably walk away. But if the price tags is 3/45. Sign me up.

[Bellhorn04]

I would rather see a trade for someone younger, and less expensive. $19M+ takes up a lot of the budget.

 

Could do both.

[Hugh2]

I would rather see a trade for someone younger, and less expensive. $19M+ takes up a lot of the budget.

 

It’s for one year. There’s extreme value in one year contracts. There’s a reason why you see all over baseball teams willing to give higher AAV to get a guy for less years.

 

Also, we’re t you the dude literally going on page for page about not giving a hoot about money and budgets? Now you care?

[Hugh2]

People do realize that any pitcher on the FA market that’s going to upgrade this rotation is going to come with an AAV price tag of 20 million plus, right? I’d rather take it on one year than 4-5. Someone is going to give Degrome 40 million per year and he’s in his mid 30’s. Could work out great, could work out worse than Chris Sales extension.

[Hugh2]

Let’s also throw some rational out into the universe. If 2021 has nothing to do with 2023, neither does 2022. Except they do.

[Old Red]

It’s for one year. There’s extreme value in one year contracts. There’s a reason why you see all over baseball teams willing to give higher AAV to get a guy for less years.

 

Also, we’re t you the dude literally going on page for page about not giving a hoot about money and budgets? Now you care?

I personally don’t care, but I do understand there is a budget. $19M even for 1 yr still takes up a lot of 2023 budget does it not?

[Old Red]

Let’s also throw some rational out into the universe. If 2021 has nothing to do with 2023, neither does 2022. Except they do.

 

And like I said, and now he’s two years older, and had some injuries in 2022.

[Bellhorn04]

I personally don’t care, but I do understand there is a budget. $19M even for 1 yr still takes up a lot of 2023 budget does it not?

 

The fact is you do care, the same way we care.

[notin]

I personally don’t care, but I do understand there is a budget. $19M even for 1 yr still takes up a lot of 2023 budget does it not?

 

 

Yeah right.

 

You just want to save John Henry’s money!!!

[Old Red]

The fact is you do care, the same way we care.

 

I guess I must if I’m worrying about $19M.

[Old Red]

Yeah right.

 

You just want to save John Henry’s money!!!

 

You got me. I’m actually one of JH financial advisors.

Edited November 13, 2022 by Old Red

[Hugh2]

And like I said, and now he’s two years older, and had some injuries in 2022.

 

Pitchers have injuries all the time, all players have injuries throughout their career. How many injuries does DeGrome have and he’s going to get 40 million per. Eovaldi is 32, Verlander is going to get 40 million plus and he’s going to be 40. This is the price of admission Red.

 

Now, I’m reference to your post above. Budgets matter, but window matters too. The Sox need starters, how much do you think they cost? Also, if Nate rejects, they’re not paying him 20, you assume he accepts.

 

Also we don’t know if the Sox plan on resetting this year or next. I’ve speculated it’s this year but I could be wrong. If it’s next year then one year means nothing. They can go 50 million over if it’s all on one year deals. This is the power in short term contracts, it gives you more opportunity to reset.

[Hugh2]

He cares!!!! Red Cares! See everyone can change. If I can change, and you can change….then we can all change!!!

[notin]

What’s leading the league in anything in 2021 got to do with now. Was he as good last year when he wasn’t hurt, and now he two years older than 2021.

 

2021 was only 2 years ago. Can’t base everything off 2022…

[moonslav59]

You should be scared -- as most of us are... but not because of Nate. The last place Red Sox starting rotation is a sham in shambles.

 

Eovaldi may not ever be healthy through an entire season again, but right now he is a better bet to pitch and pitch well for 2023 than two young guys who just had surgery and two old guys who are always hurt. He's also younger than deGrom, Bassitt, Kershaw and Verlander.

 

This morning I read reports that Boston is looking to add another starter, but only "a #2 or #3" guy. Why are the Sox unwilling to pay for a #1 like Rodon? We know it's not because they can't afford it.

 

Is it because there are just too many other holes to fill on the roster? Can a staff of #3 starters lift you to third place? If you're a cellar-dweller vowing to be way better, isn't third place way better?

 

We can afford signing 2-3 big splash players, but then what? We can wish and explain with great logic how JH can just spend more and more, but until he does, I'm assuming we keep re-setting every 2-3 years and have some 2-3 year stretches where we don't go over, at all. That has been the pattern. With penalties getting worse for multiple years over the tax line, I'm not seeing a change in that pattern.

 

I don't want another last place team in 2023 or ever again, but I don't want us to sacrifice a big chunk of the extended future for 2023, either.

 

I don't think this looks like the FA market worth a major "pounce." Just because we have high needs, doesn't mean we need to grossly overpay for a questionable FAs.

 

I think we have enough money to make the 2023 competitive, but maybe not a top contender, unless we spend over the tax line and or decide now is the time to trade a top prospect of two for something impactful- like an ace. That seems to be what our history has shown brings us rings (Pedro & Schill in '04, Beckett in '07 and Porcello in 2018.) The Lackey and Price signings were big parts of winning, too, but I don't see Rodon or deGrom like I viewed Price.

 

I think we will make a big trade for a SP'er, but we may wait one more year. IMO, the 2024 outlook is better than 2023, especially if we re-set in 2023.

 

For argument's sake, let's say we decide to become top contenders in 2023, without going over the tax line or significantly hurting the longer term outlook too much. We could:

 

1) Make a big trade for a young SP'er with a 1 or 2 slot outlook by trading Mayer or Bleis plus Wikelman or Walter of 3 from Rafaela, Yorke, Mata, Wikelman & Walter. While that would likely "hurt" the long term future, if the pitcher we get had 4+ years of control, that helps the long term, too.

 

2) By not needing to spend big money on an ace, we can use the remaining winter budget space- maybe $90M to make high impact additions at the 4-6 slots listed here:

 

SS: Turner, Correa, Bogey, Swanson

 

RF: Judge or Nimmo (maybe settle on Gallo or trade for a RF'er)

 

SP: (non ace): Nate, Wacha, Bassitt and a select few others

 

RP: add 2 of the best 6 out there or 3 of the best 10m or 12

 

If there is money left over, maybe from signing Gallo for RF, instead of Nimmo, we can get a DH like Brantley or upgrade the catcher position.

 

It is possible, but it is going to take targeted precision moves that almost all turn out well. If too many fail, we will, again, fall back on wishing for Sale and or Paxton to shine, Barnes and Taylor to return to form, or some major production from players like Schreiber, Kike, Dugo, Bello, Kelly, German, Mata, Crawford, McGuire, Dalbec, Arroyo, Refsnyder and a few others like E Valdez, Wong, Walter, Winckowski and a handful of others.

 

It is doable. I'm very optimistic we can be way better than 2022 without re-setting or trading away a major part of our farm.

 

[moonslav59]

I liked the QO. Eovaldi lead the AL in fWAR as recently as 2021.

 

If he accepts, I’m fine with it. If he rejects, issues start. I could see a 2 year contract. 3 years? I’m getting hesitant. 4 years Shaun would be a bad idea…

 

I'm okay with the QO, but I'm leaning towards wanting him to say no. We can sign another pitcher and get the draft pick.

[moonslav59]

People do realize that any pitcher on the FA market that’s going to upgrade this rotation is going to come with an AAV price tag of 20 million plus, right? I’d rather take it on one year than 4-5. Someone is going to give Degrome 40 million per year and he’s in his mid 30’s. Could work out great, could work out worse than Chris Sales extension.

 

Wacha would be an upgrade over Winckowski/Crawford, who are slotted as our 5th starter, right now. I think I saw his estimated cost would be $12M x 2.

 

I do not like trying to fix the rotation by improving the 4/5 slots. I want us to trade for an 1/2 slot SP'er, soon. I'm just saying, our rotation looks so weak, we can "upgrade" maybe 2-3 slots without spending $20M AAV on each guy.

[moonslav59]

I personally don’t care, but I do understand there is a budget. $19M even for 1 yr still takes up a lot of 2023 budget does it not?

 

Too much, IMO. The pluses are:

 

1. It's just a 1 year deal (which means more if we plan on re-setting in 2024 not 2023.)

 

2. He will not cost us a comp pick like some top SP'ers on the market would cost.

 

3. He does have an injury history, but his arm does not have 2,000 IP'd on it, like Porcello had at age 32.

 

I hope he says no, but it may not be a bad thing, if he says yes.

[moonslav59]

Pitchers have injuries all the time, all players have injuries throughout their career. How many injuries does DeGrome have and he’s going to get 40 million per. Eovaldi is 32, Verlander is going to get 40 million plus and he’s going to be 40. This is the price of admission Red.

 

Now, I’m reference to your post above. Budgets matter, but window matters too. The Sox need starters, how much do you think they cost? Also, if Nate rejects, they’re not paying him 20, you assume he accepts.

 

Also we don’t know if the Sox plan on resetting this year or next. I’ve speculated it’s this year but I could be wrong. If it’s next year then one year means nothing. They can go 50 million over if it’s all on one year deals. This is the power in short term contracts, it gives you more opportunity to reset.

 

You said it better than I, but if we want to reset, this winter, I'd rather see us seek longer term deals at moderate costs, or a couple bigger deals for long term on players not already 31 or 32. My guess is, we will try very hard not to sign anyone with a QO, so maybe Correa is "that guy." He just turned 28. No QO comp pick. We need a SS. He would be a major help to 2023 but also the extended beyond.

 

Then, sign a few shorter term deals to help us reset, but more importantly open up budget space for next winter, when we can and will go over the tax line. I'm not sure what next year's FA class looks like, but this one is about as bad as I have seen in a while.

 

Maybe we add Senga and a bunch of RP'ers along with Correa and maybe Gallo. That might set us up nicely for 2024 while making us better in 2023, too.

[moonslav59]

He cares!!!! Red Cares! See everyone can change. If I can change, and you can change….then we can all change!!!

 

I don't really like the word "cares" when it comes to the budget. I could care less how much money JH makes. To me, it just is what it is. The budget is something that is not hypothetical, despite not always being clearly defined or known by the average Joe Sox fan.

 

Our pattern has been pretty consistent. We hardly ever go way over the tax line and nev er go 3 years over, in a row. Of course, that could change, especially if a strong window is present, but is it now?

[Bellhorn04]

It looks like the Dodgers are going to go over the tax line for the third year in a row in 2023. Not that we have to follow another team's lead, but it's interesting that another team has decided it's worth it.

[moonslav59]

It looks like the Dodgers are going to go over the tax line for the third year in a row in 2023. Not that we have to follow another team's lead, but it's interesting that another team has decided it's worth it.

 

They never seem to have a bad farm. I think that is why they feel they can absorb the penalties on the drafts and IFA bonus money. The money penalties seem incidental.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

 

I'm very optimistic we can be way better than 2022 without re-setting or trading away a major part of our farm.

 

 

I'm starting to temper my offseason expectations -- which admittedly have conflicted with every winter of the Bloom Era compared to the early free-spending (can we say more desperate) days of the Epstein Era.

 

Maybe shooting for third place and a shot at a wild card run isn't such a bad strategy. The team will have to be "way better" to make the postseason. I'm just skeptical about the new balanced schedule; sure, the Sox won't have to play so many AL East games, but neither will NY, Tor, Tampa and Balt -- who all could still finish ahead of an 87-win Phillies' type contender.

 

Other clubs may be thinking the same -- all the big signings so far have been relievers, and we know bullpens now rule the postseason. The Red Sox may be stockpiling a rotation of #3 starters to get them through the regular season -- and yes, to keep costs down -- with an eye toward finding/developing/preserving power arm bullpen match-ups for later on...

[moonslav59]

I'm starting to temper my offseason expectations -- which admittedly have conflicted with every winter of the Bloom Era compared to the early free-spending (can we say more desperate) days of the Epstein Era.

 

Maybe shooting for third place and a shot at a wild card run isn't such a bad strategy. The team will have to be "way better" to make the postseason. I'm just skeptical about the new balanced schedule; sure, the Sox won't have to play so many AL East games, but neither will NY, Tor, Tampa and Balt -- who all could still finish ahead of an 87-win Phillies' type contender.

 

Other clubs may be thinking the same -- all the big signings so far have been relievers, and we know bullpens now rule the postseason. The Red Sox may be stockpiling a rotation of #3 starters to get them through the regular season -- and yes, to keep costs down -- with an eye toward finding/developing/preserving power arm bullpen match-ups for later on...

 

It will be easier for 3-4 teams from the AL East to make the playoffs than before, so that should improve our odds, but if Seattle makes some moves to improve, I'm not sure it helps.

[harmony]

It will be easier for 3-4 teams from the AL East to make the playoffs than before, so that should improve our odds, but if Seattle makes some moves to improve, I'm not sure it helps.

In addition to offseason acquisitions the Mariners hope for improvements from their young core (who gathered on Saturday):

 

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It will be easier for 3-4 teams from the AL East to make the playoffs than before, so that should improve our odds, but if Seattle makes some moves to improve, I'm not sure it helps.

 

The M's already made some moves, by locking up their solid starting rotation for at least the next three years.

 

Seattle has five pitchers who made 25 or more starts in 2022. Boston had two (one was in his 40s).

 

Best AL clubs in Runs Allowed per Game for 2022: Astros, Yanks, Rays, M's, Guards -- all playoff teams. The Red Sox were second-worst to KC.

[moonslav59]

The M's already made some moves, by locking up their solid starting rotation for at least the next three years.

 

Seattle has five pitchers who made 25 or more starts in 2022. Boston had two (one was in his 40s).

 

Best AL clubs in Runs Allowed per Game for 2022: Astros, Yanks, Rays, M's, Guards -- all playoff teams. The Red Sox were second-worst to KC.

 

Indeed. That's why I mentioned SEA.

 

Most likely, we end up with 2 WC from the ALE and 1 from the ALW. That means 3 of 5 ALE teams might make the playoffs- the same number as 2022, so the schedule won't really help any one ALE team over another, in theory.

 

If, for some reason, SEA struggles, it may help a 4th ALE team squeak in.

[mvp 78]

It looks like the Dodgers are going to go over the tax line for the third year in a row in 2023. Not that we have to follow another team's lead, but it's interesting that another team has decided it's worth it.

 

Well, they are on the cusp of WS titles, the Sox are not. If your are constantly in playoff contention, why not just stay over the tax line?