Predicting LT payroll

[Hitch]

1 hour ago, mvp 78 said:

First, no other GM is going to go for one of the moon trades. Second, I'm usually right. 😎

How dare you! Word on the street is, almost every GM is asking us throw Hicks or Masa into deals.

[mvp 78]

Just now, Hitch said:

How dare you! Word on the street is, almost every GM is asking us throw Hicks or Masa into deals.

I could see a world where Hicks is traded and the other team takes on some of the contract. Masa? They are stuck with him until DFA'd or '27 trade deadline when nothing is left on the deal. 

[Hitch]

14 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

I could see a world where Hicks is traded and the other team takes on some of the contract. Masa? They are stuck with him until DFA'd or '27 trade deadline when nothing is left on the deal. 

I think even getting rid of Hicks would be tough. Masa I can only see going if a good prospect is attached as well, or swapping for an equally worse contract. Stuck with him feels about right.

[moonslav59]

11 hours ago, JoeBrady said:

I think your total payroll will be in excess of $280M.  Not happening.

Even if we could get it to under the $40M overline, it's not happening.

[Hugh2]

The ultimate pipe dream might be for the ghosts of John Henrys past to infiltrate his body and convince him to sign both Alex Bregman and Pete Alonso.  (Bichette/Seager) being the plan b an c for Bregman.

Then you're either packaging up a prospect to offload Yoshida to open up the DH spot to a rotation (keep Duran) or you're trading an outfielder for a package of prospects to replenish the system. 

How would a lineup like this do?

DH. Jarren Duran

3B. Alex Bregman

LF. Roman Anthony

1B. Pete Alonso

RF. Wilyer Abreu

SS. Trevor Story

2B. Marcel Mayer

CF. Ceddanne Rafaela

C. Carlos Narvaez 

Obviously Duran isn't DHing full time, and he'd get plenty of reps in the outfield, there's no full time DH here, you could subsitute Duran for Yoshida, you could also trade off an outfielder at the deadline if Casas is hitting his way back and you want a full time DH. 

Obviously this lineup would rake in my opinion, but it would probably push the LT payroll up to $279-285 which does not seem realistic AT ALL.  But hypothetically, they should be able to do this and stay below the 3rd tax threshold which is where draft pick penalties kick in and a line I don't think the Sox would ever cross. 

But they could still do this and be able to reset at some point in the next two years. 

2026/7 (Gray/Sandoval) come off the books freeing up $30 million. This would get them below the 2nd LT line, and depending on where things go in the next CBA could even get them below the first line all together. 

They could shed additional payroll by not pick up Chapman $12.7 or trading away Duran $7.75.  Just one of those might get them below.  But they would certainly want to reset by 2028.  And the year after next they have (Story/Yoshida/Hicks) coming off the books for an additional $53.33 million.  

Max penalties seem to be 3 straight years over and going over the 3rd threshold.  Not only could they stay below that 3rd threshold but with over $100 million dollars coming off the books the next two years they could take on two giant contracts and still reset. 

Why should the ghost of John Henrys past convince him to do this? sales. Ticket sales, increased viewership, playoffs, playoffs, and more playoffs.  A WS caliber team should generate more than enough revenue to pay for this. John Henry just has to stop trying to be the smartest guy in the room and remember he's an owner of one of baseballs biggest market teams again.

[moonslav59]

Good laydown, Hugh.

I'd be fine with Alonso plus Polanco or Suarez.

Polanco pushes Mayer/Romy to 3B and Suarez plays 3B but can move to 1B, if Casas flounders. (Mayer 3B and Romy 2B)

Duran plus for Marte, along with Alonso and Suarez would cost about as much as Alonso & Bregman. (Marte adds about $12M and Suarez $18-22M.)

[Hugh2]

50 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

Good laydown, Hugh.

I'd be fine with Alonso plus Polanco or Suarez.

Polanco pushes Mayer/Romy to 3B and Suarez plays 3B but can move to 1B, if Casas flounders. (Mayer 3B and Romy 2B)

Duran plus for Marte, along with Alonso and Suarez would cost about as much as Alonso & Bregman. (Marte adds about $12M and Suarez $18-22M.)

I think Polanco is fools gold.  

War by season 4.0 - 1.7 - 1.3 - 0.3 - 2.6

A steady decline with a little bounce back last year.  But he will be 33 next year, he feels like a VERY strong candidate to be the guy that gets paid and just falls right off the cliff. 

I have zero interest in adding guys with that profile. 

 

 

[moonslav59]

16 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I think Polanco is fools gold.  

War by season 4.0 - 1.7 - 1.3 - 0.3 - 2.6

A steady decline with a little bounce back last year.  But he will be 33 next year, he feels like a VERY strong candidate to be the guy that gets paid and just falls right off the cliff. 

I have zero interest in adding guys with that profile. 

He has been pretty damn good for 4 years, but the injuries kept those WAR numbers down, except for 2024.

fWAR per 162

4.1 '22

2.6 '23

0.4 '24

2.9 '25

I think he's an option, because he might take a 1-2 year deal at half the money Bregisheete gets.

[moonslav59]

On 11/28/2025 at 9:53 AM, Hitch said:

How dare you! Word on the street is, almost every GM is asking us throw Hicks or Masa into deals.

When Masa or Hicks are included, it's almost always for a very high priced player and usually one that is overpaid.

We could just ask for cash back, instead. They could just cut Hicks and it would be the same as cash.

[Hitch]

3 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

When Masa or Hicks are included, it's almost always for a very high priced player and usually one that is overpaid.

We could just ask for cash back, instead. They could just cut Hicks and it would be the same as cash.

If Bres manages to get these two off the payroll, give him a 10 year contract. It ain't happening*

 

*#reversejinx

[Hugh2]

32 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

He has been pretty damn good for 4 years, but the injuries kept those WAR numbers down, except for 2024.

fWAR per 162

4.1 '22

2.6 '23

0.4 '24

2.9 '25

I think he's an option, because he might take a 1-2 year deal at half the money Bregisheete gets.

No.  If anything his injury risk is only going to go up and guys significantly decline between 30-35. 

I get it, we all get mesmorized by the long ball, but that can be blinding and make people make horrible decisions. He has poor exit velocities and doesn't have great bat speed, guys like that decline early and it's amazing he was as good as he was last year.  Polanco having a good season would be like gambling with a 20 year old water heater.  Polanco's profile scares the crap out of me 

 

[mvp 78]

7 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

No.  If anything his injury risk is only going to go up and guys significantly decline between 30-35. 

I get it, we all get mesmorized by the long ball, but that can be blinding and make people make horrible decisions. He has poor exit velocities and doesn't have great bat speed, guys like that decline early and it's amazing he was as good as he was last year.  Polanco having a good season would be like gambling with a 20 year old water heater.  Polanco's profile scares the crap out of me 

 

Not a good fit for Fenway.

[JoeBrady]

57 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

I think Polanco is fools gold.  

I was pro-Po until I saw his fielding/injury numbers.  There's a decent chance he won't play much 2B over the next two years, and he's unlikely to sign for less than that.

[Hugh2]

Polanco is fools gold.  And he very well may have one good season left in him, but If I was betting on players to fall off a cliff next year I'd put him at the top of my list. 

[drewski6]

5 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Polanco is fools gold.  And he very well may have one good season left in him, but If I was betting on players to fall off a cliff next year I'd put him at the top of my list. 

Thats not really how it works, and I dont mean to come at you because youve been on fire (in a good way)

But generally, pros are pros. Look at Story. He gets to the ballpark at the same time every day. He prob doesnt drink alcohol when he has a game the next day. Hes an adult. Hes not partying all night. Hes not picking up chicks at the local bar.  Hes not getting DUIs.  Ditto Bregman. Because they are adults and professionals.

The most likely to fall of a cliff is the kids.  Becuase they are young, not use to their success, not use to their monies, havent been established.  League can adjust to them. Sophmore slumps are very real.

Vets are good. Pros are good.  You wanna only be working in a few youngsters at a time, ideally.  You want your best players between 27 and 33.

The dudes who are most likely to fall off a cliff arent because they are older, its because they are younger.

[Hugh2]

15 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Thats not really how it works, and I dont mean to come at you because youve been on fire (in a good way)

But generally, pros are pros. Look at Story. He gets to the ballpark at the same time every day. He prob doesnt drink alcohol when he has a game the next day. Hes an adult. Hes not partying all night. Hes not picking up chicks at the local bar.  Hes not getting DUIs.  Ditto Bregman. Because they are adults and professionals.

The most likely to fall of a cliff is the kids.  Becuase they are young, not use to their success, not use to their monies, havent been established.  League can adjust to them. Sophmore slumps are very real.

Vets are good. Pros are good.  You wanna only be working in a few youngsters at a time, ideally.  You want your best players between 27 and 33.

The dudes who are most likely to fall off a cliff arent because they are older, its because they are younger.

Sorry Drew, but you could not be more wrong.  Every single MLB player who is in their 20's playing is going to not be good enough to play.   100% without fail. YOu can look at almost every single MLB player who has ever played the game and with caveats they all start to seriously decline around 30, and most are out of the game by 35 or sooner.  This is well documented, verifiable, and plays out in real time every single year. 

We also have wealth of data and numbers over the years to see if certain skill sets decline faster than others and they do.  Poor bat and speed, and below average exit velocity guys tend to decline even faster.  Polanco fits the exact profile of the type of guy who will not age well.  

Has he had a decent career up until now? has he shown good power in the past? is he a nice guy? sure but he's a horrible bet.  He's the type of bet the Baltimore Orioles make. 

If we had less holes on the roster, I'd be more open to Polanco, but we already have way too many question marks to be adding another question mark. 

Players 100% decline because they're getting older and you lose physical tools.  This is true for 100% of humans, professional athlete or not. 

 

[drewski6]

11 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Sorry Drew, but you could not be more wrong.  Every single MLB player who is in their 20's playing is going to not be good enough to play.   100% without fail. YOu can look at almost every single MLB player who has ever played the game and with caveats they all start to seriously decline around 30, and most are out of the game by 35 or sooner.  This is well documented, verifiable, and plays out in real time every single year. 

We also have wealth of data and numbers over the years to see if certain skill sets decline faster than others and they do.  Poor bat and speed, and below average exit velocity guys tend to decline even faster.  Polanco fits the exact profile of the type of guy who will not age well.  

Has he had a decent career up until now? has he shown good power in the past? is he a nice guy? sure but he's a horrible bet.  He's the type of bet the Baltimore Orioles make. 

If we had less holes on the roster, I'd be more open to Polanco, but we already have way too many question marks to be adding another question mark. 

Players 100% decline because they're getting older and you lose physical tools.  This is true for 100% of humans, professional athlete or not. 

 

Respectfully, there are some biases effecting your position.  Yes, players who are all-stars well known around the league, have illustrius careers. Stars. Tend to fall off in their 30s. Sure. 100% of them.  But its not usually the early 30s and the year in which they fall off is getting pushed further back. Guys are playing longer.

But the average MLB career is under 3 years.  There are so many young guys that come and go.  So many one year wonders.  So many hyped prospects that couldnt make it in the league. So many cusp guys who get a call up in their late 20s and just cant stick.  These type of guys greatly outnumber but arent often remembered

There is something to be said for having been there before, for being a professional, doing the things so your body is always readdy to play, focus,  maturity.  Youth worshipping is cultural.

A team of 31 yr olds beats a team of 23 year olds (holding talent level near equal)

[drewski6]

Just now, drewski6 said:

Respectfully, there are some biases effecting your position.  Yes, players who are all-stars well known around the league, have illustrius careers. Stars. Tend to fall off in their 30s. Sure. 100% of them.  But its not usually the early 30s and the year in which they fall off is getting pushed further back. Guys are playing longer.

But the average MLB career is under 3 years.  There are so many young guys that come and go.  So many one year wonders.  So many hyped prospects that couldnt make it in the league. So many cusp guys who get a call up in their late 20s and just cant stick.  These type of guys greatly outnumber but arent often remembered

There is something to be said for having been there before, for being a professional, doing the things so your body is always readdy to play, focus,  maturity.  Youth worshipping is cultural.

A team of 31 yr olds beats a team of 23 year olds (holding talent level near equal)

There is a reason why going into last year Mayer, Anthony, Campbell were supposed to carry us but instead we wound up carried by story, bregman, and duran.

[drewski6]

Anything you get from a player under 25 is gravy.  Except for those rare stars that are superstars by 23.

[Hugh2]

Just now, drewski6 said:

Respectfully, there are some biases effecting your position.  Yes, players who are all-stars well known around the league, have illustrius careers. Stars. Tend to fall off in their 30s. Sure. 100% of them.  But its not usually the early 30s and the year in which they fall off is getting pushed further back. Guys are playing longer.

But the average MLB career is under 3 years.  There are so many young guys that come and go.  So many one year wonders.  So many hyped prospects that couldnt make it in the league. So many cusp guys who get a call up in their late 20s and just cant stick.  These type of guys greatly outnumber but arent often remembered

There is something to be said for having been there before, for being a professional, doing the things so your body is always readdy to play, focus,  maturity.  Youth worshipping is cultural.

A team of 31 yr olds beats a team of 23 year olds (holding talent level near equal)

Because the 31 year old is still playing.  But when you hit the wall you stop playing, if Polanco hits a wall and stinks next year he probably plays a whole season or 1.5 before he leaves the game.  That doesn’t change the fact that the risk of him being absolutely horrible is 100% high.

 

i firmly believe your the one with your biases at play here, respectfully.  I know you like power guys, but what I’m saying is verifiably correct no bias here I explicitly said I could be wrong and Polanco could be great next year but it’s a massive massive risk.  And given his age, seeing how this might be the last contract he ever signs, he’s going to be looking for a multi year deal making the risk even that much higher. 

[Hugh2]

It’s not just the age, it’s the poor bat speed, poor bat speed guys skills fall off at an earlier age.  Polanco, bat speed wise is more like a 39 year old

[drewski6]

2 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Because the 31 year old is still playing.  But when you hit the wall you stop playing, if Polanco hits a wall and stinks next year he probably plays a whole season or 1.5 before he leaves the game.  That doesn’t change the fact that the risk of him being absolutely horrible is 100% high.

 

i firmly believe your the one with your biases at play here, respectfully.  I know you like power guys, but what I’m saying is verifiably correct no bias here I explicitly said I could be wrong and Polanco could be great next year but it’s a massive massive risk.  And given his age, seeing how this might be the last contract he ever signs, he’s going to be looking for a multi year deal making the risk even that much higher. 

Im not really speaking of polanco, just mostly this common cultural belief that younger is better. Just so we arent talking past each other.  If you are speaking primarily on Polanco, then we could be having different conversations.

My point is that if you are going to count on people to win you playoff series, you are better off counting on guys 30-33 than 21-24.

Your square prime years are 26-28, but it falls off between 29 and 39 gradually.  Sometime in teh mid 30s most guys cant compete at the highest levels anymore, sure.  But you dont want a team of 23 year olds, even if you are planning 5 years out.

"fit the timeline" is overrated cuz you usually want a mix of old and young, but if caught between teh two you would prefer to be older. (older meaning more core players between 29 and 34 than 21 and 25). Its tempting and exciting to think about the future. Even Michael Jordan was not dominating until he got a little older.  

Very few guys dominated younger than 25. You dont even have your man strenght yet.

And many guys were one and dones, and many guys were hyped prospects that never could figure it out.

There is something to be said for a guy who has established a baseline.  Im thinking more of Story than Polanco. I am glad Story didnt opt out.  Some people wanted younger and cheaper at the position, some people always want younger and cheaper.  I think thats the bias I speak of, and I dont mean that you , Hugh, is someone who gets misled by the cultural youth worship.  Im really jsut saying pump the breaks on "younger and cheaper is better" cuz theres plenty of guys who are in their 30s who are more reliable than any sophmore. Maybe not their mid-upper 30s, granted. And some guys fall off younger, for sure.

[Hugh2]

2 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

Im not really speaking of polanco, just mostly this common cultural belief that younger is better. Just so we arent talking past each other.  If you are speaking primarily on Polanco, then we could be having different conversations.

My point is that if you are going to count on people to win you playoff series, you are better off counting on guys 30-33 than 21-24.

Your square prime years are 26-28, but it falls off between 29 and 39 gradually.  Sometime in teh mid 30s most guys cant compete at the highest levels anymore, sure.  But you dont want a team of 23 year olds, even if you are planning 5 years out.

"fit the timeline" is overrated cuz you usually want a mix of old and young, but if caught between teh two you would prefer to be older. (older meaning more core players between 29 and 34 than 21 and 25). Its tempting and exciting to think about the future. Even Michael Jordan was not dominating until he got a little older.  

Very few guys dominated younger than 25. You dont even have your man strenght yet.

And many guys were one and dones, and many guys were hyped prospects that never could figure it out.

There is something to be said for a guy who has established a baseline.  Im thinking more of Story than Polanco. I am glad Story didnt opt out.  Some people wanted younger and cheaper at the position, some people always want younger and cheaper.  I think thats the bias I speak of, and I dont mean that you , Hugh, is someone who gets misled by the cultural youth worship.  Im really jsut saying pump the breaks on "younger and cheaper is better" cuz theres plenty of guys who are in their 30s who are more reliable than any sophmore. Maybe not their mid-upper 30s, granted. And some guys fall off younger, for sure.

Here is another way of looking at it, guys in the early 30's outperform guys in their early 20's because theres less of them.  If you added in all the guys who stopped playing because they fell off the cliff the guys in their 20's would blow them away in value. 

Any year could be the year they go from a 3-4 WAR go to negative value real quick.  Players physically peak at age 25 but often don't show signs of it for a few more years as they're still in their "prime" but when physical tools start to deteroiorate the decline accelerates.  That accelaration drastically picks up speed at 30 and almost completely wipes out all guys careers at age 35. 

THat's the risk you take every time you sign a guy who is 30 to a multi year deal.  You could get 5-6 more years of good production out of them or 1-2 or NONE.  And it has been proven through many studies that poor bat speed and low exit velocity guys hit that wall sooner.  Polanco is both, and he's likely not going to take a 1 year deal. 

No matter how you slice it, he's a massive risk.  And I'm ok with risk, but not him.....he's not the guy. 

Yes younger is better, that's NOT ANAGOLOUS with having all youth.  I agree with you, we need some adults in the room and you need to take some chances on some guys.  Young guys can be sent back down and optioned......you can't do that with vets under contract. 

[drewski6]

21 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

Here is another way of looking at it, guys in the early 30's outperform guys in their early 20's because theres less of them.  If you added in all the guys who stopped playing because they fell off the cliff the guys in their 20's would blow them away in value. 

Any year could be the year they go from a 3-4 WAR go to negative value real quick.  Players physically peak at age 25 but often don't show signs of it for a few more years as they're still in their "prime" but when physical tools start to deteroiorate the decline accelerates.  That accelaration drastically picks up speed at 30 and almost completely wipes out all guys careers at age 35. 

THat's the risk you take every time you sign a guy who is 30 to a multi year deal.  You could get 5-6 more years of good production out of them or 1-2 or NONE.  And it has been proven through many studies that poor bat speed and low exit velocity guys hit that wall sooner.  Polanco is both, and he's likely not going to take a 1 year deal. 

No matter how you slice it, he's a massive risk.  And I'm ok with risk, but not him.....he's not the guy. 

Yes younger is better, that's NOT ANAGOLOUS with having all youth.  I agree with you, we need some adults in the room and you need to take some chances on some guys.  Young guys can be sent back down and optioned......you can't do that with vets under contract. 

The science here is simply not true.  Decline starts in the late 20s/early 30s and is very gradual (1-2%/yr) until the 40s.  The issue is to play ball at the mlb level, you dont need to decline very much to no longer be able to hang with the best of the best.

But physically, you are still on the way up at 25 and you really dont start coming down until 29-31, then it hits a second gear around 41.  But sure, sometime around 35/36, after 4-6 years of gradual decline , its very hard to still be among the best of the best.

[drewski6]

But now, your body is closer to its prime at 31 than it is at 21.  Even 33 vs 23.  34 vs 24 it starts to flip.

[drewski6]

21 65% of prime, 22 70%, 23 75%, 24 85%, 25 90%, 26, 95%, 27 100%, 28 98%, 29 96%, 30 94%, 31 91%, 32 88%, 33 84%, 34 78%, 35 68%

Would be my estimates. And Im not talking out my butt here.  I am 41 with a dad suffering from early dimentia (hes 75 going on 95) so Ive been doing a TON of reading and consulting with my doctors (i have plenty because my best friend is a doctor as our a few of my uncles, and i have my own PCP)...So ive been reading up a lot on decline both physical and mental (spoiler alert, they are linked) especially lately.

[drewski6]

Im trying to set myself up to not get old as young as my dad did, so my point is that Im pretty well read on decline right now.

[JoeBrady]

51 minutes ago, Hugh2 said:

It’s not just the age, it’s the poor bat speed, poor bat speed guys skills fall off at an earlier age.  Polanco, bat speed wise is more like a 39 year old

I've seen studies on FG with K-rates by age and velocity.  There were some good players that couldn't hit a pitch > 96.  There will always be exceptions, but one can't make decisions on an exception basis.

[mvp 78]

11 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

The science here is simply not true.  Decline starts in the late 20s/early 30s and is very gradual (1-2%/yr) until the 40s.  

As an MLBer, your body physically declining by 1-2% is a massive shift though. That would get you out of the game by age 35 for many players. Only the greats are hanging on after then and it's mainly due to name recognition to sell tickets. 

[JoeBrady]

12 minutes ago, drewski6 said:

both physical and mental (spoiler alert, they are linked) especially lately.

You cannot change your genes, but every article I've read indicates that extra exercise will delay mental decline.  I think it leans towards aerobic exercise, but all exercise helps.