moonslav59

We are not resetting the tax this year, so how is that a "disadvantage?" We can afford $25M x 5 or 6 years, so again, how are we at a "disadvantage?" Yes, several other teams can "afford" $25M, but almost all of them have shown no signs of spending that much on one player. The 2 teams that usually will spend that much (NYY & LAD) are resetting their tax this year. I don't see the disadvantage at all, except the DH vs OF issue or ruse.

Yes, lots of maybes, but it's hard for me to think of another team that needs JD, is not resetting their tax, and will pay close to $25M x 5 or 6 years.

Very true, or they could have held longer and been traded for some of these bargain deals made this winter.

Yes, and selling half your tickets at $150 a ticket vs all your tickets at $25 a ticket is just plain good business, especially, kif those not going to the game then pay for NESN to watch it at home.

I keep hearing the same argument. I'm tired of answering the same answer only to have it forgotten until the next time this comes up. I was not against trading prospects. I loved the Sale trade despite the overpay. I think we traded too many top prospects, too quickly. I'm okay with where we are and what we did. I'm glad DD got players with 3 years of control not 1. I'm happy we have a 3-4 year window (that began last year) where we have a good chance at a ring, BUT I realize we sacrificed our chances or winning in the future. I'm not going to just assume we will "rebuild the farm" and be all optimistic like some seem to be. I'm not all gloom and doom either. Our extended future certainly looks less rosy due to the trades. Our window looks much better. As for where does Margot play? We are looking at signing an OF'er/DH to $25M a year. As for Moncada? We're looking to sign a DH to $25M. We are in need of a 2Bman. We could have moved Devers or Moncada to 1B and have the other at 3B. We could use Kopech in 2-3 years. We could use Espi in 3-4 years. I love having Kimbrel, Sale and Pom on the roster. I'm happy with the trades, but I realize what effect the deals are going to have down the road. It's easy to say we "won the trades" before any of the guys we traded even have a chance to make an impact. Time will tell. If we win a ring or get really close a couple times, I won't complain about having a couple down years afterwards. I really won't. But, I'm not in denial (not that you are). I do think we will have 2-3 "down years"- maybe not a cliff, but most likely not really top playoff contenders or ring contenders. I realize staying at the Luxury limit or just below should keep us from last place, but it's hard to win with just free agents and middling in-system players.

The teams that have a top 5 farm system like we had 2-3 years ago. Our farm produced Betts, Bogey, JBJ, Devers plus a bunch of prospects that landed us sale, Kimbrel and Pomeranz all within a 4 year period. While that is rare, and the system was different back then, it's hard to imagine anyone in our system being the next Betts or Devers within 2-3 years.

Yes, I should have said "most" of our top prospects. Chavis does have a shot... much longer than Moncada, Margot and , Kopech, I might add.

So far, yes, although after 2016, one might have thought somewhat differently. The Kimbrel deal looks much better after his great 2017 and the exploding contract costs of top closers on the open market. The Pom trade looks much better after his solid 2017. The Sale trade looks great, too. The jury is still out, until after we see two results: 1) Did we win a World Series? 2) How did Moncada, Kopech, Margot, Espi and others do at a fraction of the financial cost?

Pom did not help us in 2016. Kimbrel was not great in 2016. Sale was not here in 2016. All were a huge part of our winning 2017. Point well taken.

No doubt.

It's not a "trainwreck", but we should not expect a major impact player to join the 25 man roster for 2-3 years. If we do get one, it will likely be only 1. When it gets difficult to replace or re-sign departing and meaningful players, it sure helps to have some cheap, young and significant players to add to the roster. One "problem" with our farm is that our best prospects are at least 2-3 years away. I like our draft picks and international signings, but they are what they are: long shots. They are not as sure a bets as those Ben drafted and signed, when we had a different system and higher draft picks.

I'm not saying it wasn't inevitable, but we rate to be a playoff team for 3 more years, so the thought of getting back to top 10 is a long shot. Also, if we still had Espinoza, Kopech and a few others, we'd still be top 10 despite making the playoffs for 2 straight years.

The spending limits on international free agents could be the biggest blow to the chances of the Sox rebuilding the farm. The slot money for draft picks hurts us, too, but not as badly. Moncada, Bogey, Devers, Margot and Espinoza were all Int'l signings that are now a huge part of our core: Sale Kimbrel Pom Bogey Devers

The 3 teams you mentioned built up their farms during periods of having high draft picks within a system designed to help teams that have money draft "unsignable" players and spend heavily on international free agents. Losing Flores hurt. Our farm does have promise, but it is light years behind the farm of 2013-2015.

Yes, every team has 2-3 guys with serious upside but rawness (or youth) that keeps them from the top 100 at this time.

So? If they told low spending teams to spend more, my guess is they'd sign 3 guys at $10M not 1 at $30M or 5 guys at $6M vs 3 guys at $10M. They might also choose to lock up arb guys to longer contracts. IMO, they should shorten the pre-arb and arb years and pay the better players while they are actually doing well, and not afterwards.

I agree, but at the same time, Chavis or Groome could do poorly and drop out of the top 100.

One could argue the upper contracts bring others up, since an agent can say, well if Morrison is worth so much, then someone just below him should be worth just under his salary. I do think most high spending teams focus a lot of their spending on just 3-5 players, and then there is a big drop off to the middle and arb guys and then another significant drop off to the pre-arb guys. Look at the Sox (Luxury tax AVV): $31M Price $22M HRam $21M Porcello $14M Pedey $13M Kimbrel $13M Sale $11M Betts $9M Pom $7M Bogey $7M Moreland $6M JBJ $4M Kelly $2M ERod, Holt, Thornburg, Leon $1M Vaz, Wright, Smith, Workman 20 players at or near min salary. 9 players between $835K and $3.8M 4 players between $6.1M and $8.5M 4 players between $10.5M and $13.8M 3 players over $20.6M My guess is the players would vote overwhelmingly for many more contracts between $6-15M than 7 or 8% over $20M. I'm not sure raising the low limit on teams would accomplish this, but my guess is it would more than raising the top limit.

Yes, players should push for the low limit raises more than the upper ones, since the upper ones usually only give a select few players huge contracts, while a raise to the lower levels would increase mid range contracts.

I'm okay with the tax, but the limit should have been set higher and with larger increases year-to-year. There should also be a minimum salary budget that rises faster than the top one.

Yes, he will be.

Ho-hum. He doesn't mention HRam's contract coming off the books in a year or two. He provides a list that is missing Machado and Harper, but talks about them later. He mentions Machado plays 3B, and we "have one already," but does not mention Machado's ability to play SS and the possibility of trading Bogey to fill a hole created by a departing player.

Damn! Mujica just signed elsewhere!

A Healthy Buch is an oxymoron.

Maybe his hope is that he's adding a full season of Price, Carson Smith, Maddox and Workman plus whatever we get from Thornburg. I can't see DD going the whole winter without at least signing a journeyman pitcher or two to a minor league deal.