Bellhorn04

Get 'er done, Ben! Wake up...party's over!

I e-mailed Speier about this...he replied that a lot of people were asking about it so he wrote this today. A note of clarification on John Lackey’s salary and the luxury tax threshold 11.13.13 at 12:45 pm ET By Alex Speier | 5 Comments In the aftermath of this look at the Red Sox’ current payroll commitments for 2014, there has been widespread curiosity on one front: Why is John Lackey listed as a $16.5 million salary for luxury tax purposes? The right-hander is entering the final season of his five-year, $82.5 million contract. But because he missed all of 2012 while recovering from Tommy John surgery, a vesting team option at the major league minimum ($500,000 plus a cost of living adjustment from 2014 to 2015) for 2014 was triggered. So, with that option in place, does it alter the way that Lackey’s 2014 average annual value is calculated for luxury tax purposes? Simple answer: No. Even if the Sox exercised Lackey’s 2015 option today, it wouldn’t impact how his AAV is determined in any year of the contract prior to the option. He’d still represent a $16.5 million player for the purposes of 2014 payroll, and he’d still represent approximately a $500,000 player for the purposes of 2015 payroll. The implications are twofold: First, Lackey represents, at least as of now, the most expensive player on the Sox’ roster in the coming year, and secondly, he represents a potentially game-changing member of the roster for 2015 if he remains healthy and effective while pitching at the major league minimum. If, for instance, the Sox wanted to sign Jon Lester to a long-term deal that would take effect starting in 2015 (something that the team is expected to explore this spring), the payroll flexibility afforded by Lackey could play a significant role in giving the Sox the flexibility to do so while staying well within the luxury tax threshold.

I don't know...Kemp is a big talent, but with his recent injuries he looks like he might be a bad contract too.

But he's making 21-21.5 million a year for 6 years. It would be like a big thank you to the Dodgers for The Trade.

Um, couldn't you say the same thing about the Red Sox? Think about it?

And generally the only way writers can figure that is by going with the guys whose teams had the biggest improvement in wins. When Tito was with the Red Sox I think the highest he finished in the voting was 3rd or 4th. But he had a big handicap because he inherited a 95-win team - tough to improve on. With Cleveland he inherits a 68-win team and bingo, wins the award. Silly IMO.

lmao

Well, Cleveland did it with about half the payroll we did, so Francona is probably getting credit for that. Personally I don't care about any of the awards, but MOTY I especially don't care about.

Yeah, that's pretty confusing jung. Drew's strength is his SLG, not his BA.

More like 60% about pitching. The KC Royals had the best ERA and ERA+ in the league. And they're not the first team to lead the league in pitching and miss the playoffs.

That seems a bit premature. Is his latest injury that impossible to recover from?

He did play in 134 games this year.

Latest payroll projections from Alex Speier: Guaranteed deals David Ortiz 17.00 John Lackey 16.50 Jake Peavy 16.50 Dustin Pedroia 13.30 Ryan Dempster 13.25 Shane Victorino 13.00 Jon Lester 9.37 Clay Buchholz 7.75 Jonny Gomes 5.00 Koji Uehara 4.25 Craig Breslow 3.13 David Ross 3.10 TOTAL GUARANTEED 122.15 Arbitration eligible Junichi Tazawa 2.00 Estimated Andrew Miller 1.75 Estimated Franklin Morales 1.75 Estimated Mike Carp 1.20 Estimated Team control Felix Doubront 0.58 Estimated Daniel Nava 0.57 Estimated Will Middlebrooks 0.55 Estimated Brandon Workman 0.50 Estimated Xander Bogaerts 0.50 Estimated Summary Guaranteed deals 122.15 Arbitration eligible 7.00 Estimated Team control 2.70 Estimated Depth callups 4.00 Estimated Trades 5.00 Estimated 40-man roster 1.20 Estimated Dodger subsidy 3.90 Medical benefits etc.10.80 Estimated Total 156.75 Notes: Bailey not included, projected as non-tender.

I don't see how we can add cost in starting pitching without also subtracting cost in starting pitching.

Yeah, I don't think they should eat more than that either.

OK forget about Peavy...what about Dempster.

Agreed.

But they would certainly have to move Dempster or Peavy to have room for Hudson or Haren.

They may be a little strapped in the sense of staying under the $189 million. It all depends, of course, what they do about catcher/first base/shortstop.

Sign me up.

My preference would be Dempster. But if they can't move him maybe trade Peavy. Reasoning: Both are signed for only one year. Frees up $10 million or so for other needs. 2014 rotation still has Lester/Lackey/Buchholz/Doubront/Peavy or Dempster + prospects.

I can see Napoli getting 2 clean years. 3 clean years would be pretty stupid on somebody's part.

That's true but Dempster's 4.57 was the one that was pretty close to what a lot of people expected.

I think they should make a serious effort to trade either Dempster or Peavy. It it's Dempster and they don't have to pay more a third of his salary, or if it's Peavy and they don't have to pay more than a couple million. Something like that. Then instead of $32 million they've got $40 million plus to spend. I have a strong feeling Dempster or Peavy will be moved.

OK, if you mean Peavy would be #4 on the Sox I agree.