moonslav59

I never heard of this, but it makes more sense to charge it the following year than to retroactively charge teams for past budgets. You can't go backwards, since adding some salary to a year in the past could have been enough to put a team over a tax line and change future taxes and penalties. I've never seen a team pay a one year charge after an opt out.

Silly Twins!

Okay, I missed your point, sorry. The one thing I trust Bloom with is maximizing the potential of a FA spending budget. He may sign 5-7 guys with the money he might have spent on Betts- no Springer or anyone on your list. It might be a better plan than putting all your eggs in one basket. Paying Betts $35M a year would be about 1/6th the player salary budget. Personally, I think he's worth $35M+ a year, but I see the risk.

I'm not so sure his defense declines all that much. Experience counts for something, and remember, Betts has only been an OF'er for a few years. Did Dewey's defense decline as he aged? Sure, part of Mookie's great D is tied to his speed and quick reaction time, but that doesn't mean he can't improve in other areas to compensate for that projected decline. He's also a smart base runner not just a fast one. Also, where is the evidence that quick twitch muscle reaction time declines sharply with age? Is there another player in history that had this quality? I'm not sure they even measured this long ago, so where's the evidence? Another possibility is that he loses some speed and twitch reflexes but gains in power. There are many examples ofplayers who hit 20-30 Hrs in their 20's then hit 30-40 from 30-35 or later. I'd pay Betts more than $300M x 10. He'll likely be worth $37.5M x 2, $35.0M x 2, $32.5M x 2, $27.5M x 2 and $25.0M x 2. That's not even counting on rising player salary averages over the next 10 years.

Here are some trades the simulator shows the other team getting a slightly better deal: Betts (50 value) to Dodgers for... (C- minors) Ruiz (44.7) + (2B-minors) Estevez (4.6) or (P-majors) Maeda (12.2) +2B-minors) + (1B/OF-majors) Beaty + Downs (21.9) + (C-minors) Cartaya (10.3) or Betts (50) to SD for... (C- minors) Campusano (24.7) + (LHP-minors) Morejon (19.6)+ (SS/2B minors) Cronenworth (5.5) or (C-majors) Hedges (22.1) + (OF-majors) Margot (10.4)+ (LHP-minors) Weathers (15.0) or to the Braves for.... (RHP-minors) Anderson 30.5 + (C-minors) Contreras (20.6) =51.1 of (C-minors) Contreras (20.6)+ (RHP-minors) Wright (20.4)+ (OF-majors) Inciarte (5.5)+ (SS- minors) Graffanino (1.7) or (RHP-minors) Anderson (30.5) +(C-minors) Langeliers (15.4)+ (OF-minors) Jenista (3.3) These are just examples I found. I'm not saying I know much about these players, or if I'd make these deals, but all look better than a comp pick, to me.

Springer is a FA after this year, so that's a clear no. If I trade Betts, it won't be for Joc Pederson, either. I'd trade him for young ML players or ML ready prospects that are under team control for 4+ years. Then, after resetting, I give Betts a more than fair offer next winter. If someone else goes nutty and out bids us, then at least we have something to show for losing him and a big wad of cash to spend elsewhere at a minimum tax cost.

Yes, but the numbers the Post used seem messed up.

I'm more confused after reading this, but I'm not sure everything written here is correct. I do not think they go back and adjust past budgets and taxes, but I suppose they could aply the difference to the next year or remaining years on a contract. I'm thinking the Chapman extension does not affect the contract and will be treated as a separate contract at $18M after the 5 year deal runs out.

I'd pay Betts more than Harper and Machado, but there is a limit on how high I'd go. It's a hard choice to make. To me, it comes down to this: if we think we will reset and then pay Betts whatever it takes to keep him, then fine. I'm not so sure we can feel confident in that option and also end up paying him way more than we really wanted to but do it just because we committed to this choice. The flip side is dealing him to get something worthwhile in return instead of getting a lousy comp pick, instead. We shouldn't just give him away, but how little are we prepared to settle on? The third option may be the best of all. Trade Betts for the best we can get, even if it doesn't seem like enough. Trade JBJ, too. (Maybe Price & Eovaldi.) Use the money to sign under-the-radar FAs that will help the team as much or more in 2021 and beyond than 2020. Reset the tax, then go hard after Betts for 2021 without going too far overboard. This way, if we lose out on him, we still have something to show for losing him, and we can use the money dedicated to bringing Betts back to sign other good FAs. This plan has one noticeable drawback: we'll likely suck in 2020. I'd hate to watch a Betts-less Sox team in 2020, but I'm thinking this might be the best option, at this point. BTW, I don't get what "Mookie downgrade" means.

He has some offensive upside, but sure, there are other defensive CF'ers out there who cost very little. Replacing Price is only difficult because we still haven't really replaced Porcello's innings. Price has pitched less than 108 IP in 2 of the last 3 years. It's the main reason we are having a hard time finding a taker. We may not need a pitcher as good as Rourke to replace what Price is likely to give us in 2020.

If they created a minimum team player salary budget line, that would force some of the cheap owners to pay more in salary, and in theory, keep some of their stars or sign others to replace those that leave. If I was the player's union, I'd push hard for this, and make sure that minimum line goes up significantly every year. That and double the minimum salary year one of the deal and triple by year 3. I'd also start the arb process 2 years earlier and end it one year earlier. They have to close the gap between the top earners and lowest ones and the top spending teams and lowest ones. Just my opinion. Call me a Socialist, but this would be for the overall good of the game by making it more competitive and fair.

Nobody has JD as costing us $27.25M in 2020 against the tax. His contract guarantees him $110M/5, so the AVV is $22M x 5. If he opts out, it's his choice not the team's, so I think the money counts as quaranteed. If he did or does opt out, I don't think they go back and adjust past budgets and taxes- like Jacko says.

1) We could trade Price for Pollock or Bradley for Marisnik. 2) We could probably get someone to pay Prrice $12-16M, which coupled with saving $11M on JBJ would put us $8-12M under the tax line. With that money, we could sign a SP'er, CF'er and maybe even a 1Bman. I'm not talking great replacements, but it's not like replacing Price and JBJ needs to be great. 3) We could, for one year, move Beni to CF and try Travis (Chavis?) in LF or play Lin (Duran?) in CF- yikes! We could try to make DHern a starter of pray Johnson or Velazquez qet their act together, but if we go with this option, we might as well just commit to a rebuild and sell off other players with just 1 year remaining- maybe even 2 years left.

I'm thinking it's almost a certainty we find a way to reset. We could trade JBJ and eat $25M of Price's $31M and be under- not that we'd have to pay that much, but it's not as hard as people think. Trading Betts alone, gets us way under.

If we had that starting rotation, you'd be bashing it to the moon and back.

He is guaranteed that money. It's not a team option. He counted as $22M this and last year while he made $23.75M.

But, not his Lux Tax cost.

The Yanks and Dodgers have reset recently. The Sox are trying to. The Giants and Cubs are looking to cut salary. The system was designed to limit top spenders from continuously spending. That part worked, to some extent. Now, they need to make the system force the low spenders to spend more.

JD signed for $110M/5 with opt-outs. That's $22M AVV & Lux Tax. Cots has $22M/ Spotrac $23.75 Cots arb estimated Betts at $27.5/ Spotrac $27.7. JBJ: cots has $11.5M/Spotrac $11M. ERod: cots $9M/ Spotrac $9.5M Most of the other arbs has Spotrac projecting slightly higher. Spotrac has the $2M deffered money for Manny counting on the Lux Tax/ Cots does not. I'm not saying Cots is better, but in my opinion I think they have been right more often than other sites.

It shouldn't matter how many are aclled up. They only get ML pay for the amount of days they are on the ML squad. It shouldn't matter if 2 guys get ML pay or 20 guys sharing the same 2 slots.

I've run the numbers myself and find cots is usually spot on. Spotrac has been wrong before.

At the time of the Nomar trade he was toast. Betts is not. To me, losing enough of JBJ's & Price's salary to get us under with some room to sign 1-3 low level FAs makes more sense. In July, we decide on trading Betts and others.

I trust cots: $18.6M over.

I'm chilled. It's you who needs a chill pill. Bloom is hard at work trying to find the best of all the possible crappy deals out there that will get us under the Lux Line. He's not lazy. He's been given an impossible task: cut over $20M from the budget without losing viewership, attendance and competitiveness. This is no task to rush into.

My guess is one of these two things happen: 1) Betts & Price to LAD for Pollock and _______ (Maybe with Kelly, if they want to lessen the financial hit.) 2) Price for Myers with maybe other pieces involved.