SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Red Sox sign Edward Mujica (2 yr/9.5M)
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 5, 2013 17:43:39 GMT -5
Love the signing. As regards to how much money they have to spend. Everyone is assuming they're not going to go over the lux tax threashold. But that may not be the case this year. With so much salary coming off the books next year and even more after 2015 (less than 20 m committed). They can go over for the time being and get back under easily the next two years. Not an open and closed case in my opinion. Your opinion is wrong. Do some research (here's a hint: type in "$189 million" "2014" and "collective bargaining agreement", add in "Red Sox" if you'd like to be team-specific) and then come back to the board. Really, this has been a central tenet of all teams since the new CBA was announced. The team has never said that they are unwilling to go over, it's all been an assumption by commentators (albeit a reasonable one), but they have stated (and demonstrated) a willingness in the past to go over the threshold. The new CBA makes it more appealing to stay under, but until they state an unwillingness to go over the threshold mloyko is absolutely correct that it's not a certainty that they won't go over.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Dec 5, 2013 18:00:56 GMT -5
The team has never said that they are unwilling to go over, it's all been an assumption by commentators (albeit a reasonable one), but they have stated (and demonstrated) a willingness in the past to go over the threshold. The new CBA makes it more appealing to stay under, but until they state an unwillingness to go over the threshold mloyko is absolutely correct that it's not a certainty that they won't go over. www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2013/11/08/how-much-can-red-sox-spend-winter-2014-payrollBTW, your holding to a standard that Ben has not "state[d] an unwillingness to go over the threshold" and therefore it is not a certainty that they won't go over is a false prophet; even if they state it, they could go over. The CBA makes it prohibitively expensive to do so, which is why every team has been maneuvering to stay under. There has been no indication that the Red Sox are planning on exceeding the threshold, while there has been every indication through the press (because, of course, Ben is not going to come out and be quoted on this) that the Red Sox are planning to remain under the threshold in order to gain some of the revenue sharing that would occur if the Hankees were to exceed the threshold. I suggest that if mloyko understood the CBA and its ramifications he would not think that exceeding the threshold was a realistic possibility.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Dec 5, 2013 18:01:15 GMT -5
Your opinion is wrong. Do some research (here's a hint: type in "$189 million" "2014" and "collective bargaining agreement", add in "Red Sox" if you'd like to be team-specific) and then come back to the board. Really, this has been a central tenet of all teams since the new CBA was announced. The team has never said that they are unwilling to go over, it's all been an assumption by commentators (albeit a reasonable one), but they have stated (and demonstrated) a willingness in the past to go over the threshold. The new CBA makes it more appealing to stay under, but until they state an unwillingness to go over the threshold mloyko is absolutely correct that it's not a certainty that they won't go over. Red Sox are probably unwilling to go over it now, because they are a young cheap team. Pedroia signed a very team friendly contract, Ortiz doesn't play defense but his bat is still cheap, Lester and Buchholz have not hit the open market yet, Bradley, Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, Carp, Nava, Webster, Workman, Britton are all prearb eligable, and they have a strong farm system behind those guys. As those guys start commanding a decent salary and if the youth don't step up, I expect the Sox to be over the payroll.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Dec 5, 2013 18:26:35 GMT -5
Red Sox are probably unwilling to go over it now, because they are a young cheap team. Pedroia signed a very team friendly contract, Ortiz doesn't play defense but his bat is still cheap, Lester and Buchholz have not hit the open market yet, Bradley, Bogaerts, Middlebrooks, Carp, Nava, Webster, Workman, Britton are all prearb eligable, and they have a strong farm system behind those guys. As those guys start commanding a decent salary and if the youth don't step up, I expect the Sox to be over the payroll. espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/page/rumblings120113/why-yankees-red-sox-spending-bigUnder baseball's CBA, a team exceeding $189 million is forced to pay a sum equating to a percentage of the difference between the team's salary (calculated per the CBA) and the luxury tax threshold. A team in their first year of exceeding the threshold is required to pay 17.5 percent of the difference. That jumps to 30 percent if a team is above the threshold a second consecutive year, then to 40 percent in the third straight year and finally 50 percent in the fourth consecutive year and any year beyond that. A team like the Hankees would be required to pay half of the difference between their payroll and the $189 million tax threshold in 2014. However, if the Hankees do not exceed $189 million in 2014, their 2015 payment (assuming they exceed the threshold in 2015) resets to just 17.5 percent of the difference. The Red Sox did not exceed the threshold in 2013 (only the Hankees and Dodgers did). Therefore, this issue is important but not the critical issue to the Red Sox organization. The critical issue has to do with revenue sharing. The new CBA decreed that 15 large-market teams, including the Red Sox, are prohibited from receiving initial revenue sharing dollars (based on a percentage of their local revenue, approximately one-third under the old CBA) into a pool that is distributed evenly to all clubs. The new CBA, however, contained a "rebate" clause, which permits the large-market clubs that don't exceed the luxury tax threshold to receive back a percentage of their revenue sharing contribution, with the percentage rising to 100 percent in 2016. This is a major deal for the Red Sox. The Hankees thought, at one time, that this alone was worth $40 million to their annual bottom line. I haven't seen the possible number for the Red Sox but, even at $25 million, it's big deal. That's why most people in baseball think $189 million is a de facto cap this year.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 5, 2013 18:27:22 GMT -5
The team has never said that they are unwilling to go over, it's all been an assumption by commentators (albeit a reasonable one), but they have stated (and demonstrated) a willingness in the past to go over the threshold. The new CBA makes it more appealing to stay under, but until they state an unwillingness to go over the threshold mloyko is absolutely correct that it's not a certainty that they won't go over. www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2013/11/08/how-much-can-red-sox-spend-winter-2014-payrollBTW, your holding to a standard that Ben has not "state[d] an unwillingness to go over the threshold" and therefore it is not a certainty that they won't go over is a false prophet; even if they state it, they could go over. The CBA makes it prohibitively expensive to do so, which is why every team has been maneuvering to stay under. There has been no indication that the Red Sox are planning on exceeding the threshold, while there has been every indication through the press (because, of course, Ben is not going to come out and be quoted on this) that the Red Sox are planning to remain under the threshold in order to gain some of the revenue sharing that would occur if the Hankees were to exceed the threshold. I suggest that if mloyko understood the CBA and its ramifications he would not think that exceeding the threshold was a realistic possibility. As Passan pointed out earlier this year, it's not turning out the way that everyone assumed it would when the CBA was written (and when the Sox and Yanks were first reported to desire to stay under). Link
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 5, 2013 19:11:20 GMT -5
Yankees are not Red Sox. It makes zero sense for a WS winning team to go over 189 to get marginally better. They could go over by 5m and theoretically cost themselves 25m... So in essence they paid mujica 30-33m (25m lost revenue + 5m salary + tax)... Makes zero sense... Yankees are at risk of losing more by having a lousy product
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 5, 2013 19:46:23 GMT -5
Yankees are not Red Sox. It makes zero sense for a WS winning team to go over 189 to get marginally better. They could go over by 5m and theoretically cost themselves 25m... So in essence they paid mujica 30-33m (25m lost revenue + 5m salary + tax)... Makes zero sense... Yankees are at risk of losing more by having a lousy product The Red Sox stand to gain significantly less then the Yankees by staying under the threshold, and no one was talking about going over for a marginal upgrade. They also aren't going to cost themselves anywhere near $25M by going over by $5M, probably closer to 10% of that.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 5, 2013 19:50:49 GMT -5
Love the signing and love the fact that Ben's already strong bargaining position at the Winter Meetings just improved. I think we're coming out of the meetings with a Stanton/Tulo/Corgo/Bautista/Other caliber bat.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 5, 2013 19:52:55 GMT -5
The Red Sox can easily dump some salary if necessary also. They could trade Peavy without giving up cash. They have a lot of bullpen arms making $2m + that teams would be interested in that can easily be replaced by minimum salary guys. Dempster + $4 million would be easy to trade.
I don't see the luxury tax threshold as being an issue at all.
|
|
|
Post by mjammz on Dec 5, 2013 21:32:20 GMT -5
Since the Red Sox did not exceed the luxury tax in 2013 they would be assessed a 17.5% tax on any overages. With the cap set at 189 million, even if they went up to 200 (hypothetical) thats only about a 2 million dollar tax. People are acting like it's some death sentence to go above the threshold for a year its not.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 5, 2013 21:40:45 GMT -5
Since the Red Sox did not exceed the luxury tax in 2013 they would be assessed a 17.5% tax on any overages. With the cap set at 189 million, even if they went up to 200 (hypothetical) thats only about a 2 million dollar tax. People are acting like it's some death sentence to go above the threshold for a year its not.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 5, 2013 21:45:08 GMT -5
Since the Red Sox did not exceed the luxury tax in 2013 they would be assessed a 17.5% tax on any overages. With the cap set at 189 million, even if they went up to 200 (hypothetical) thats only about a 2 million dollar tax. People are acting like it's some death sentence to go above the threshold for a year its not. ? By 2016, the fifteen teams in the largest markets in baseball will be disqualified from receiving revenue sharing. This feature is being phased in over the coming years. The disqualified clubs will receive a refund for the amount that they would have received in revenue sharing, although teams that have exceeded the Luxury Tax threshold in recent years will not receive a full refund. (MLB.com) This is a big reason to stay below 189, correct? Couldn't find any more detail on this provision so maybe I'm completely wrong
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 6, 2013 9:15:22 GMT -5
Since the Red Sox did not exceed the luxury tax in 2013 they would be assessed a 17.5% tax on any overages. With the cap set at 189 million, even if they went up to 200 (hypothetical) thats only about a 2 million dollar tax. People are acting like it's some death sentence to go above the threshold for a year its not. No one is saying that at all. In fact, none of us would be upset if they went over. It's not our money, but they have big financial reasons to stay under. Maine, to your point. The Sox have never blown the tax number out of the water so suggesting they'd do so would be a first. Also, it seems you don't understand that by going over the tax they forfeit an estimated 25m. That has to be factored into the calculation. I used Mujica because his AAV is around 5m and I can't see them going over the tax by more then that. If they did, then my projected figure goes up. It's imperfect as theoretically, one guy doesn't put you over, and they weren't over with his signing. The calculation is really: Total dollars over cap X 1.175 + 25m So for 20m over its cost the team about 48.5m for whatever player(s) put them over it. Once you are over it, then it doesn't much matter as that 25m was already forfeited and the it's just a 17.5% tax. However, deciding to go over is a huge deal. The Yankees, gad little shot at getting under and fielding a very good team. Sox already have a very good team, are WS champs and have a deep system.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 6, 2013 10:03:32 GMT -5
Since the Red Sox did not exceed the luxury tax in 2013 they would be assessed a 17.5% tax on any overages. With the cap set at 189 million, even if they went up to 200 (hypothetical) thats only about a 2 million dollar tax. People are acting like it's some death sentence to go above the threshold for a year its not. No one is saying that at all. In fact, none of us would be upset if they went over. It's not our money, but they have big financial reasons to stay under. Maine, to your point. The Sox have never blown the tax number out of the water so suggesting they'd do so would be a first. Also, it seems you don't understand that by going over the tax they forfeit an estimated 25m. That has to be factored into the calculation. I used Mujica because his AAV is around 5m and I can't see them going over the tax by more then that. If they did, then my projected figure goes up. It's imperfect as theoretically, one guy doesn't put you over, and they weren't over with his signing. The calculation is really: Total dollars over cap X 1.175 + 25m So for 20m over its cost the team about 48.5m for whatever player(s) put them over it. Once you are over it, then it doesn't much matter as that 25m was already forfeited and the it's just a 17.5% tax. However, deciding to go over is a huge deal. The Yankees, gad little shot at getting under and fielding a very good team. Sox already have a very good team, are WS champs and have a deep system. Where is it estimated that they are in line to get $25M back? The Yankees (who have paid way more in luxury tax) were estimated to get $45M back, but the landscape has changed in such a way that they would only be expected to get a small fraction of that back now, so even if the Sox were expected to get something like that back, they aren't expected to get anything even remotely close to that back now, and it that would have been total over the next three years anyway, not all this year. Edit to add: And I'm not suggesting they would, or should, blow past the luxury tax limit - frankly, I think chances are that they don't go over at all - but signing one (or two) of the top free agents remaining could necessitate going over by a few million, and if they think the fit is right, I think the Sox would (and should) be willing to be over the limit for a year.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Dec 6, 2013 11:20:02 GMT -5
Edit to add: And I'm not suggesting they would, or should, blow past the luxury tax limit - frankly, I think chances are that they don't go over at all - but signing one (or two) of the top free agents remaining could necessitate going over by a few million, and if they think the fit is right, I think the Sox would (and should) be willing to be over the limit for a year. I understand your point but you are thinking like a fan, not an owner. The big-market owners negotiated very hard to get this rebate into the CBA and they are not going to blow over the threshold by a few million in order to cost themselves tens of millions of dollars of pure profit over several years. Why do you think the Hankees just let Cano walk away?
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 6, 2013 11:34:27 GMT -5
Edit to add: And I'm not suggesting they would, or should, blow past the luxury tax limit - frankly, I think chances are that they don't go over at all - but signing one (or two) of the top free agents remaining could necessitate going over by a few million, and if they think the fit is right, I think the Sox would (and should) be willing to be over the limit for a year. I understand your point but you are thinking like a fan, not an owner. The big-market owners negotiated very hard to get this rebate into the CBA and they are not going to blow over the threshold by a few million in order to cost themselves tens of millions of dollars of pure profit over several years. Why do you think the Hankees just let Cano walk away? My point is it's not actually expected to be tens of millions of dollars anymore, even for the Yankees who would be getting back significantly more than the Sox. That part of the equation has changed since they were originally reported to be trying to stay under, and it may not be worth missing out on a player simply to stay under at this point. And the Yankees may have passed on Cano because 10/240 was a bad business decision (they also have the added incentive of resetting their tax rate (their 50% tax rate), which the Sox don't have at this point). I'm not saying they will, or necessarily even should go over, but I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as it once was, or as people seem to believe it still is.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Dec 6, 2013 12:08:37 GMT -5
My point is it's not actually expected to be tens of millions of dollars anymore, even for the Yankees who would be getting back significantly more than the Sox. That part of the equation has changed since they were originally reported to be trying to stay under, and it may not be worth missing out on a player simply to stay under at this point. And the Yankees may have passed on Cano because 10/240 was a bad business decision (they also have the added incentive of resetting their tax rate (their 50% tax rate), which the Sox don't have at this point). I'm not saying they will, or necessarily even should go over, but I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as it once was, or as people seem to believe it still is. 10/240 is better for the Hanks than 7/175 from an AAV perspective. They let him go, pure and simple (which made sense once they overpaid for Ellsbury). You and I will not agree on this issue. Let's get this thread back on track. Mujica only discussion please.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Dec 6, 2013 13:24:48 GMT -5
I like the Mujica signing. Depth was a key in 2013 and Ben got some for 2014 without losing a pick or prospects. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 7, 2013 1:20:05 GMT -5
Sorry, I know this is continuing the off-topic discussion, but I thought this should be posted (maybe the luxury tax discussion could/should be moved?). From Speier today: Link
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Singer on Dec 7, 2013 13:22:59 GMT -5
Red Sox make this deal official meaning he passed his physical.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 7, 2013 13:31:21 GMT -5
Well, I waited 12 hours for the payroll discussion to be moved to its own thread, so I'll opine here:
When the Sox say they're willing to go over, I read that as going over at the deadline. IOW, they're comfortable leaving less than $5M headroom (enough to trade for a $15M AAV player) because, by its nature, you don't expect to use your safety margin. You can do a cost-benefit analysis based on the odds of needing to acquire players of various AAV, and the results are different if you're willing to go over. With $5M headroom, you may be leaving $2M of talent off the field for no good reason, in the average scenario.
I think that adds an effective $1.5M - $2M or so to the current budget.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Dec 7, 2013 13:43:18 GMT -5
Christopher Smith ?@smittyonmlb 4m Edward Mujica had nothing wrong with shoulder. It was a tiredness in neck. #RedSox
Christopher Smith ?@smittyonmlb 3m Edward Mujica said he was "a little big angry" when he didn't pitch much in the playoffs. #RedSox
Great news.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Dec 7, 2013 13:51:18 GMT -5
Jason Mastrodonato ?@jmastrodonato 1m Mujica said he told his agent to let him know if Red Sox made an offer because "I want to be part of that team."
|
|
|