|
Post by ethanbein on May 20, 2014 16:58:29 GMT -5
The report I saw said a contract for the remainder of the year for around $10 mil, no QO at year end. I see what was posted above on the luxury tax but my understanding is that we would be a little over the limit with this contract and would have to cut somewhere else to stay under the limit ( I see a highly respected poster saying above this is not the case but it seems very close ). My understanding also is that we would lose up to $50 mil in revenue sharing dollars if we go over the limit. We are not going over the limit for anyone this year. Correct me if I'm wrong but the main issue isn't the luxury tax rate for us this year. We are at the lowest level and we would be barely over the limit so we would be talking a mil or 2 at most probably. The issue is maybe $50 mil in lost revenue sharing. Maybe I'm missing some details or just have my facts wrong but that is my understanding. Personally, I love the commitment to winning, but I don't like even this deal. And my gut tells me Middlebrooks is on his way somewhere else at this point. The fractured finger meant he would be a out for a while. They want to win this year and pulled the trigger. It seems a little unclear to me. This summary of the 2011 CBA says that the top fifteen largest market clubs will lose revenue sharing money by 2016. All the money that would have gone to those teams will be refunded to teams. However, it says that "Clubs that have exceeded the CBT threshold two or more consecutive times will forfeit some or all of their refund". That's super unclear, but it seems like as long as they stay under next year, they're fine even if they go over this year. The tax teams that are going over it for the first time is only 17.5% on the amount over, which really isn't bad at all. I doubt they'll feel the need to make a big salary dump unless they want to take on salary in a trade later this year.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on May 20, 2014 16:58:45 GMT -5
They have to add in benefits package stuff as well. At least another $10 mil. Those incentives which have not been reached yet for players like Sizemore. I don't know and decided a while ago it wasn't worth my time to track such details but I really think we are on the edge. But I could be wrong of course.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 20, 2014 16:58:46 GMT -5
My understanding also is that we would lose up to $50 mil in revenue sharing dollars if we go over the limit. We are not going over the limit for anyone this year. This is inaccurate. Revenue sharing proceeds are only withheld if a team goes over the luxury tax limit in at least two consecutive seasons ( see here for details). Because the Red Sox did not go over the luxury tax limit last year, they will not lose any refunded money even if the Drew signing puts them over the luxury tax limit this year (which I continue to maintain that it will not). If they go over the luxury tax limit again in 2015, they might lose some refunded revenue sharing money, but it would (a) only be 25% of the refund and (b) be closer to 25% of $30m than 25% of $50m.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on May 20, 2014 16:59:40 GMT -5
This WMB to LF or 1B talk really needs to stop. His defense is just fine at 3B and if he can't hit well enough to stick there then he definitely can't hit well enough for LF or 1B. HIs defense has been adequate at third base, but nothing special. If he's going to become a part-time player, adding some versatility won't hurt. Does he have the bat to be a good starting 1B or LF? Absolutely not, but it'll be nice to have additional spots to work in his .833 career OPS vs. LHP's. That all being said, I'm not sure I see LF as much of a fit, but he'd be well served to get comfortable at first base.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on May 20, 2014 17:05:13 GMT -5
ethanbein, My recollection of the CBA is that the Redsox lose the option of revenue sharing in 2016 no matter what. And they lose access to revenue sharing dollars even this year if they go over the limit.
I'm basing this on limited data but I read last winter that the Yanks wanted to stay under the limit this winter to get access to revenue sharing dollars. Maybe they had already gone over it last year and thereby would be disqualified if it happened again this year while the Sox would be OK?
Possibly if a small market team goes over the luxury tax limit 2 years they would lose access? After 2016?
My guess is if we go over the limit we lose revnue sharing this year.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 20, 2014 17:12:38 GMT -5
Re: luxury tax:Post-Dempster retiring, Alex Speier had the Red Sox as having committed $167m in total salary, a figure which includes money committed for salary, benefits, 40-man roster spots, and money owed to the Dodgers. Even assuming that figure does not include Sizemore's $5.25m in potential incentives, adding in Capuano's $2.25m base salary/$2.75m in potential incentives, and assuming that all incentives will be reached, the Red Sox should still be under the luxury tax limit of $189m. Add all that up with Drew's $10.2m in prorated salary, and you get $187.45m.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on May 20, 2014 17:12:47 GMT -5
My understanding also is that we would lose up to $50 mil in revenue sharing dollars if we go over the limit. We are not going over the limit for anyone this year. This is inaccurate. Revenue sharing proceeds are only withheld if a team goes over the luxury tax limit in at least two consecutive seasons ( see here for details). Because the Red Sox did not go over the luxury tax limit last year, they will not lose any refunded money even if the Drew signing puts them over the luxury tax limit this year (which I continue to maintain that it will not). If they go over the luxury tax limit again in 2015, they might lose some refunded revenue sharing money, but it would (a) only be 25% of the refund and (b) be closer to 25% of $30m than 25% of $50m. Even adding the 1/30th benefits and all the players on the 40 man plus Drew's $10 mil we still are not over the cap after all bonuses and such? Thanks for the other info. I hadn't seen.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on May 20, 2014 17:14:24 GMT -5
OK, I accept jmei's analysis. Sounds definitive to me.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 20, 2014 17:50:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on May 20, 2014 18:00:11 GMT -5
When Middlebrooks first went down Alex Spier reported that the Sox had no intetest in Drew. Two days resulting in the Sox longest losing streak since 2012 and suddenly the guy they said they didn't want a couple of days ago is signed.
There are only a couple of possible explanations for this.
#1 Spier is a bad reporter and reported based upon minimal or unreliable sources.
#2 Spier was purposely misled by people he trusted.
#3 Spier's sources are in baseball ops and they didn't make this decision.
This feels to me like an ownership decision and not a baseball ops decision. If that's the case everyone should be troubled regardless of the merits of the decision.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on May 20, 2014 18:24:29 GMT -5
It was a mistake to turn down the QO; Was it? He cost himself $4 million in the short term, but now he's not eligible for the QO. If he plays well at all he'll get a deal that will more than make up for it. If he'd accepted then played well he'd have been in the exact same situation. But if Drew took the qualifying offer this year, and then got offered another qualifying offer next year he would have made around $29 million. So what are the odds he makes $19 million next year? Not exactly a bang up job by Scotty Boras. He definitely cost his client some money by overplaying his hand and misreading the market.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on May 20, 2014 18:27:17 GMT -5
Michael Silverman ?@mikesilvermanbb 2 min. Source: #RedSox pursuit of Drew multifactorial. One was if they didn't sign him, #Yankees, #Tigers or #Pirates would.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on May 20, 2014 18:46:15 GMT -5
When Middlebrooks first went down Alex Spier reported that the Sox had no intetest in Drew. Two days resulting in the Sox longest losing streak since 2012 and suddenly the guy they said they didn't want a couple of days ago is signed. There are only a couple of possible explanations for this. #1 Spier is a bad reporter and reported based upon minimal or unreliable sources. #2 Spier was purposely misled by people he trusted. #3 Spier's sources are in baseball ops and they didn't make this decision. This feels to me like an ownership decision and not a baseball ops decision. If that's the case everyone should be troubled regardless of the merits of the decision. Or how about the Red Sox denied interest until a deal was actually done because of the potentially negative impact on the team should the deal not materialize and Speier reported that denial of interest? This stuff is usually a lot more simple than sometimes it is made out to be. Speier has several years of experience as an excellent reporter. I'm sure he has an array of sources - some better than others. There doesn't have to be more to in than that.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on May 20, 2014 19:05:43 GMT -5
From Buster
BOS twice offered Drew $14.1m -- first in Nov., then in January. Rejected 2x. Now he takes $10m. Can't spin that as anything but $4m loss.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on May 20, 2014 19:08:07 GMT -5
My issue with the entire circle of events, is that now they have WMB at Pawtucket, Cecchini is there, both will not be getting AB's and playing time at 3b that Cecchini needs and Pawtucket already has Roberts/Snyder there also.
This sign seems like it adds much more issues than it solves at the MiLB level. Shaw seems ready to be promoted, but cant be with Lavarnway still at Pawtucket and how to get enough AB's with WMB also trying to learn the position if he was moved.
The only logical fix is to finally end the 2y WMB experiment and move him from the organization for good.It hasn't worked out and probably never will. Others are catching him from behind in the prospect chart and it's time to move on.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 20, 2014 19:37:07 GMT -5
Farrell all but confirmed that the Red Sox would go to a three-man rotation of Bogaerts, Drew, and Middlebrooks when Will gets healthy. Middlebrooks is unlikely to be relegated to Pawtucket for longer than a rehab assignment or a few practice reps at 2B.
PS: good to see you back, johnsilver52.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 20, 2014 19:42:31 GMT -5
Snyder and Tatman shouldn't block anyone. Can cut either of them anytime with no regrets.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on May 20, 2014 20:21:57 GMT -5
Farrell all but confirmed that the Red Sox would go to a three-man rotation of Bogaerts, Drew, and Middlebrooks when Will gets healthy. Middlebrooks is unlikely to be relegated to Pawtucket for longer than a rehab assignment or a few practice reps at 2B. PS: good to see you back, johnsilver52. Kind of a less than optimal situation for Bogaerts and WMB. You don't want to take the future potential SS talent, who is so young and regulate him to a P/T player and possibly have him moving back and forth between SS/3b as well at such a young age, then there is WMB, who has issues with making contact that sitting down for a couple of games at a time might not work well with, or being relegated to a P/T player. The routine the team went to late last year for awhile of Bogaerts at 3b and Drew at SS (to me) playing regularly seems to most solid. Let me ask you Jmei.. Have watched some Pawsox games.. I haven't noticed anything awful in Cecchini's defense at 3b. He isn't the quickest around the bag and his throws are not always on target, but I think with a 1b of Napoli's ability some would have been brought in. Wouldn't someone who could get OB have helped the team as much as Drew, who struggles mightily vs lefties? Thanks also.. Glad to be back :-)
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 20, 2014 21:26:39 GMT -5
Was it? He cost himself $4 million in the short term, but now he's not eligible for the QO. If he plays well at all he'll get a deal that will more than make up for it. If he'd accepted then played well he'd have been in the exact same situation. But if Drew took the qualifying offer this year, and then got offered another qualifying offer next year he would have made around $29 million. So what are the odds he makes $19 million next year? His chances of making $19M in '15 aren't good, but the chance of his next contract's total value being more than that is excellent because he won't have a QO attached. Jhonny Peralta, who is simply worse at baseball than Drew, got 4/$53M this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on May 20, 2014 22:41:30 GMT -5
Welcome back Stephen Drew. Glad he's back. Not happy that they needed him to come back. Ideally WMB and Xander Bogaerts were supposed to be a young power hitting tandem on the left side of the infield.
Unfortunately at this point it looks like WMB will always be an injury prone tease who will hit some homers, but cannot hit or even stay on the field consistently. Meanwhile, my preference was for Xander to get a full season defensively at SS, and now that's not going to happen, but honestly by 2015 it goes one of two ways in my mind - either Bogaerts can finally be a decent SS and Cecchini figures out his 3b defense and seizes the 3b job or probably more likely the Sox permanently move Bogaerts to 3b, Marrero hits enough to be an asset at SS as he's clearly the best SS the Red Sox have, and perhaps Cecchini winds up trade bait or hopefully develops his power and can make the transition to 1b ala Kevin Youkilis.
For 2014 Drew certainly improves the infield defense although I would think it would be hard for him to match how good he was in the field last year although I don't think it would be difficult for him to be better at SS defensively than Bogaerts is.
I do have concern about Drew's bat. I'm having visions of Rich Gedman circa 1987 when he missed spring training and the first month of the season in a contract dispute, came back, and totally lost his ability to hit. I'm kind of concerned that Drew will be a .220 hitter and will continue his post-season struggle offensively because he'll be rusty and his timing will be off. I guess that remains to be seen.
I think at this point it was a move the Sox had to make. Can't blame them for making it, especially since it's obvious they weren't getting a draft pick for him. Wished they didn't have to.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on May 20, 2014 23:50:05 GMT -5
From Buster BOS twice offered Drew $14.1m -- first in Nov., then in January. Rejected 2x. Now he takes $10m. Can't spin that as anything but $4m loss. I guess Buster forgot about taxes and agent commission. He cost himself two million or so.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on May 21, 2014 5:14:21 GMT -5
Reading his postgame comments it sounds like they've successfully destroyed Xander's confidence. I admit that this move makes them slightly better but I'm not convinced it's worth the collateral damage of screwing with the best prospect you've had in like 40 years. That said, if Xander's makeup is all it's cracked up to be he should be able to deal with it and not be making errors in the field because he's upset (something he basically admitted to after the game).
It sucks that WMB can't even be a passable enough offensive player to prevent this.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on May 21, 2014 5:37:06 GMT -5
Agreed. Spending nearly 2 full seasons, while enduring 700+ PA at a sub .300 OBP rings of the Sox not giving up, for better or for worse anytime soon.
I only thought a couple years back Middlebrooks was destined to become another Butch Hobson for the team, but now that would be a vast improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 21, 2014 7:19:13 GMT -5
When Middlebrooks first went down Alex Spier reported that the Sox had no intetest in Drew. Two days resulting in the Sox longest losing streak since 2012 and suddenly the guy they said they didn't want a couple of days ago is signed. There are only a couple of possible explanations for this. #1 Spier is a bad reporter and reported based upon minimal or unreliable sources. #2 Spier was purposely misled by people he trusted. #3 Spier's sources are in baseball ops and they didn't make this decision. This feels to me like an ownership decision and not a baseball ops decision. If that's the case everyone should be troubled regardless of the merits of the decision. Or it could just be they were playing it close to the vest. Why would you tell a reporter such things to begin with when it could get in other players - Xander and Middlebrooks' - heads?
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 21, 2014 7:22:22 GMT -5
From Buster BOS twice offered Drew $14.1m -- first in Nov., then in January. Rejected 2x. Now he takes $10m. Can't spin that as anything but $4m loss. Yeah, Boras fail. I can see the Nov. move, but by Jan - esp late Jan - the landscape should've been relatively clear. Boras had a bad year on some fronts. Jay Z pwnd him on Cano, and he was left costing Morales and Drew money. Speaks to higher and middle tier free agents.
|
|