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 acquire Steve Pearce from TOR for Santiago Espinal
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 29, 2018 8:47:48 GMT -5
I'm just afraid that the desire to stay under the luxury tax limit (while perfectly acceptable) will lead to absorbing a higher prospect cost in a deal for a reliever at the deadline. I was thinking the same thing. They still have a high leverage reliever to get and it's possible they look at a 2b like Dozier (even with Holt, Nunez, and Phillips around). I don't see how they can get more than a reliever and send a nicer prospect to get the other team to chip $ in and stay under the LT limit. But if they are looking at more then they might just go over that limit. I'm very interested to see what they decide to do. Maybe Swihart winds up getting dealt for cash to open up a little wiggle room?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 29, 2018 9:11:15 GMT -5
I'm just afraid that the desire to stay under the luxury tax limit (while perfectly acceptable) will lead to absorbing a higher prospect cost in a deal for a reliever at the deadline. I was thinking the same thing. They still have a high leverage reliever to get and it's possible they look at a 2b like Dozier (even with Holt, Nunez, and Phillips around). I don't see how they can get more than a reliever and send a nicer prospect to get the other team to chip $ in and stay under the LT limit. But if they are looking at more then they might just go over that limit. I'm very interested to see what they decide to do. Maybe Swihart winds up getting dealt for cash to open up a little wiggle room? I don't think they can just get cash and have it come off the luxury tax calculation, but I'm not sure if they could give Swihart away in return for a team paying some of Pablo or Hanley's salaries. I guess that's the same thing, but a nuance.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 29, 2018 9:49:10 GMT -5
I was thinking the same thing. They still have a high leverage reliever to get and it's possible they look at a 2b like Dozier (even with Holt, Nunez, and Phillips around). I don't see how they can get more than a reliever and send a nicer prospect to get the other team to chip $ in and stay under the LT limit. But if they are looking at more then they might just go over that limit. I'm very interested to see what they decide to do. Maybe Swihart winds up getting dealt for cash to open up a little wiggle room? I don't think they can just get cash and have it come off the luxury tax calculation, but I'm not sure if they could give Swihart away in return for a team paying some of Pablo or Hanley's salaries. I guess that's the same thing, but a nuance. I thought that they did something like that in the Roenis Elias deal where they traded for Eric Filia and then when he failed the physical (I still wish I knew what that physical showed!! I really liked his bat) the Sox dealt him back to Seattle for cash. I thought it was somehow applied to giving them more wiggle room under the luxury tax limit, but I wasn't really sure how. It's not like Elias was making big money. I would wonder why they'd take cash instead of trying to get another player from Seattle's system if they weren't going to take Filia and if it wasn't going to benefit them somehow in regards to staying under the luxury tax limit.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 29, 2018 11:22:07 GMT -5
I was thinking the same thing. They still have a high leverage reliever to get and it's possible they look at a 2b like Dozier (even with Holt, Nunez, and Phillips around). I don't see how they can get more than a reliever and send a nicer prospect to get the other team to chip $ in and stay under the LT limit. But if they are looking at more then they might just go over that limit. I'm very interested to see what they decide to do. Maybe Swihart winds up getting dealt for cash to open up a little wiggle room? I don't think they can just get cash and have it come off the luxury tax calculation, but I'm not sure if they could give Swihart away in return for a team paying some of Pablo or Hanley's salaries. I guess that's the same thing, but a nuance. I'm actually interested in this now. If the Red Sox get cash, does it count towards the luxury tax? Similarly, if they give cash, does that count towards the tax? If neither count, then couldn't the Sox theoretically offer a team, say the Marlins, Swihart+Cash in exchange for taking Sandoval's remaining contract? The Sox could still pick up the tab for most of his remaining deal, but remove the contract from the luxury tax since it technically belongs to the Marlins in this scenario? I imagine that any cash they give goes against the tax so I would assume then any cash they receive has the same impact?
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 29, 2018 11:42:10 GMT -5
This was noted earlier in the year, but an update: Santiago Espinal concludes his tenure with Salem with the 4th lowest GB-rate (31.2%) and 9th lowest K-rate (12.5%) out of 193 qualified players in all of High-A. In other words, nobody has been better in High-A this year at combining contact skills and hitting the ball in the air.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 29, 2018 11:53:39 GMT -5
It only took 14 years but Pearce finally is a Red Sox. He was the Sox's 10th round draft choice in 2004 but didn't sign. He went to Pittsburgh the following year.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 29, 2018 12:19:24 GMT -5
I don't think they can just get cash and have it come off the luxury tax calculation, but I'm not sure if they could give Swihart away in return for a team paying some of Pablo or Hanley's salaries. I guess that's the same thing, but a nuance. I'm actually interested in this now. If the Red Sox get cash, does it count towards the luxury tax? Similarly, if they give cash, does that count towards the tax? If neither count, then couldn't the Sox theoretically offer a team, say the Marlins, Swihart+Cash in exchange for taking Sandoval's remaining contract? The Sox could still pick up the tab for most of his remaining deal, but remove the contract from the luxury tax since it technically belongs to the Marlins in this scenario? I imagine that any cash they give goes against the tax so I would assume then any cash they receive has the same impact? Cash considerations that are paid in trades are not the same necessarily as paying a guy's salary, to my understanding. Here, the Jays are paying some of Pearce's contract, which is a CBT thing. Player contracts are what count towards the CBT.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 29, 2018 12:21:04 GMT -5
This was noted earlier in the year, but an update: Santiago Espinal concludes his tenure with Salem with the 4th lowest GB-rate (31.2%) and 9th lowest K-rate (12.5%) out of 193 qualified players in all of High-A. In other words, nobody has been better in High-A this year at combining contact skills and hitting the ball in the air. Did he change his swing path this year? I just read his scouting page and was interested that he had 'below average power potential" but had 7 HR in Salem and a .477 slugging % (.164 ISO). Looks like he was already exceeding his potential because that's some nice pop for a small SS.
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Jun 29, 2018 12:21:14 GMT -5
This is definitely henpicking, but if the payroll was in better shape and Toronto didn’t have to pay some of the contract, would we have had to give up Espinal as opposed to a guy in the 25-40 range instead? Asking to see if that’s really how these things work.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 29, 2018 12:22:01 GMT -5
I'm actually interested in this now. If the Red Sox get cash, does it count towards the luxury tax? Similarly, if they give cash, does that count towards the tax? If neither count, then couldn't the Sox theoretically offer a team, say the Marlins, Swihart+Cash in exchange for taking Sandoval's remaining contract? The Sox could still pick up the tab for most of his remaining deal, but remove the contract from the luxury tax since it technically belongs to the Marlins in this scenario? I imagine that any cash they give goes against the tax so I would assume then any cash they receive has the same impact? Cash considerations that are paid in trades are not the same necessarily as paying a guy's salary, to my understanding. Here, the Jays are paying some of Pearce's contract, which is a CBT thing. Player contracts are what count towards the CBT. But could they "trade" for some other team paying part of Hanley or Pablo's salary?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 29, 2018 13:02:08 GMT -5
So the Sox are still under, but who knows the real number at this point? Red Sox payroll had them 4 million dollars over when that wasn't true regardless of how much cash the Jays sent the Sox.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 29, 2018 13:28:19 GMT -5
I'm actually interested in this now. If the Red Sox get cash, does it count towards the luxury tax? Similarly, if they give cash, does that count towards the tax? If neither count, then couldn't the Sox theoretically offer a team, say the Marlins, Swihart+Cash in exchange for taking Sandoval's remaining contract? The Sox could still pick up the tab for most of his remaining deal, but remove the contract from the luxury tax since it technically belongs to the Marlins in this scenario? I imagine that any cash they give goes against the tax so I would assume then any cash they receive has the same impact? Cash considerations that are paid in trades are not the same necessarily as paying a guy's salary, to my understanding. Here, the Jays are paying some of Pearce's contract, which is a CBT thing. Player contracts are what count towards the CBT. Since the Jays are paying some of Pearce's contract I get that this impacts the the luxury tax directly; however, what stops the Red Sox from packaging Pablo Sandoval's contract along with Swihart and "cash considerations" for the Marlins 50th ranked "prospect"? Couldn't the Sox theoretically just use cash considerations to pay for his contract for the Marlins while having his actual contract on their books? I don't foresee a team like them worrying about the luxury tax threshold any time soon and in the process they're not really paying for his deal and get a player out of it. I'm assuming there's a rule about this because teams like the Red Sox and Yankees would be able to clear any bad contract from their tax implications. It's just a matter of if they're comfortable or not filling the gap because they're still technically spending for the player.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2018 14:29:46 GMT -5
That's probably the 40 and 25-man replacement for acquiring a reliever. I could see trading Swihart and one of Dalbec, Ockimey, or Travis for a top tier lefty reliever.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 29, 2018 14:30:08 GMT -5
Cash considerations that are paid in trades are not the same necessarily as paying a guy's salary, to my understanding. Here, the Jays are paying some of Pearce's contract, which is a CBT thing. Player contracts are what count towards the CBT. Since the Jays are paying some of Pearce's contract I get that this impacts the the luxury tax directly; however, what stops the Red Sox from packaging Pablo Sandoval's contract along with Swihart and "cash considerations" for the Marlins 50th ranked "prospect"? Couldn't the Sox theoretically just use cash considerations to pay for his contract for the Marlins while having his actual contract on their books? I don't foresee a team like them worrying about the luxury tax threshold any time soon and in the process they're not really paying for his deal and get a player out of it. I'm assuming there's a rule about this because teams like the Red Sox and Yankees would be able to clear any bad contract from their tax implications. It's just a matter of if they're comfortable or not filling the gap because they're still technically spending for the player. I'm not following. The Sox can't clear any bad contract from tax implications. Perhaps they can get a team like the Marlins to kick in a million or so, but I can't see them wanting to be on the hook for $9 million or whatever is left on Sandoval's contract just to obtain Swihart. Plus Sandoval does have a buyout that kicks in for $5 million in 2020. Don't think the Marlins want any part of that.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 29, 2018 14:32:55 GMT -5
That's probably the 40 and 25-man replacement for requiring a reliever. I could see trading Swihart and one of Dalbec, Ockimey, or Travis for a top tier lefty reliever. I'm not sure that Swihart plus Travis get you a top tier lefty. Maybe a LOOGY, but that's about it. Ockimey and Dalbec have a little more value at this point than Travis, but I don't see a Brad Hand type. I'm not sure the Giants part with Watson at this point as they're still close enough. Britton is still a big question mark at this point but if he bounces back he'll get a bit more than that especially if the Sox don't want to assume the whole remaining contract.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 29, 2018 14:44:11 GMT -5
Since the Jays are paying some of Pearce's contract I get that this impacts the the luxury tax directly; however, what stops the Red Sox from packaging Pablo Sandoval's contract along with Swihart and "cash considerations" for the Marlins 50th ranked "prospect"? Couldn't the Sox theoretically just use cash considerations to pay for his contract for the Marlins while having his actual contract on their books? I don't foresee a team like them worrying about the luxury tax threshold any time soon and in the process they're not really paying for his deal and get a player out of it. I'm assuming there's a rule about this because teams like the Red Sox and Yankees would be able to clear any bad contract from their tax implications. It's just a matter of if they're comfortable or not filling the gap because they're still technically spending for the player. I'm not following. The Sox can't clear any bad contract from tax implications. Perhaps they can get a team like the Marlins to kick in a million or so, but I can't see them wanting to be on the hook for $9 million or whatever is left on Sandoval's contract just to obtain Swihart. Plus Sandoval does have a buyout that kicks in for $5 million in 2020. Don't think the Marlins want any part of that. What I'm saying is you give them Pablo's contract and cash considerations almost equal to the amount. To use a very bad analogy. I have a dr bill of $100. I have a you pick 2 meal from Panera that costs $15 (eating lunch as you might guess) I can give you this meal, plus sign over my debt to you so that the $100 bill is under your name. I also give you $90 cash. I'm not in debt for anything now, but I did just spend $90. I can go back to the dr now and spend another $100 if I wanted to and create new debt of $100. On the books I owe $100. In reality I've spent $190. In return, you get a meal and can spend the $90 I just gave you to pay for the $100 bill I also just handed to you. Not sure if I just made things more confusing.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 29, 2018 14:46:00 GMT -5
What's better dropping down 10 spots in the draft or having to give up more talent to have teams eat money?
This is why I said blow by the tax line in the offseason getting the impact reliever we clearly needed. Just what this teams doesn't need is to overpay in prospects to save cash.
Tony Watson was sitting there all offseason screaming for us to sign him.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 29, 2018 14:50:34 GMT -5
I'm not following. The Sox can't clear any bad contract from tax implications. Perhaps they can get a team like the Marlins to kick in a million or so, but I can't see them wanting to be on the hook for $9 million or whatever is left on Sandoval's contract just to obtain Swihart. Plus Sandoval does have a buyout that kicks in for $5 million in 2020. Don't think the Marlins want any part of that. What I'm saying is you give them Pablo's contract and cash considerations almost equal to the amount. To use a very bad analogy. I have a dr bill of $100. I have a you pick 2 meal from Panera that costs $15 (eating lunch as you might guess) I can give you this meal, plus sign over my debt to you so that the $100 bill is under your name. I also give you $90 cash. I'm not in debt for anything now, but I did just spend $90. I can go back to the dr now and spend another $100 if I wanted to and create new debt of $100. On the books I owe $100. In reality I've spent $190. In return, you get a meal and can spend the $90 I just gave you to pay for the $100 bill I also just handed to you. Not sure if I just made things more confusing. So basically, can I trade a player, or Pablo's contract, sign their debt over to you and just trade you straight cash to pay for the debt I just signed over to you? The other team is on the books for Pablo, but the Red Sox would be dumping the cash value of the contract to the Marlins so even though it's on their books, the Red Sox are essentially paying for it. Meanwhile, the Marlins get a player for all the trouble. I'm not asking the Marlins to pay for Pablo.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jun 29, 2018 15:14:52 GMT -5
What I'm saying is you give them Pablo's contract and cash considerations almost equal to the amount. To use a very bad analogy. I have a dr bill of $100. I have a you pick 2 meal from Panera that costs $15 (eating lunch as you might guess) I can give you this meal, plus sign over my debt to you so that the $100 bill is under your name. I also give you $90 cash. I'm not in debt for anything now, but I did just spend $90. I can go back to the dr now and spend another $100 if I wanted to and create new debt of $100. On the books I owe $100. In reality I've spent $190. In return, you get a meal and can spend the $90 I just gave you to pay for the $100 bill I also just handed to you. Not sure if I just made things more confusing. So basically, can I trade a player, or Pablo's contract, sign their debt over to you and just trade you straight cash to pay for the debt I just signed over to you? The other team is on the books for Pablo, but the Red Sox would be dumping the cash value of the contract to the Marlins so even though it's on their books, the Red Sox are essentially paying for it. Meanwhile, the Marlins get a player for all the trouble. I'm not asking the Marlins to pay for Pablo. Oh, Ok. Thanks. Sounds like money laundering.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jun 29, 2018 15:22:17 GMT -5
So basically, can I trade a player, or Pablo's contract, sign their debt over to you and just trade you straight cash to pay for the debt I just signed over to you? The other team is on the books for Pablo, but the Red Sox would be dumping the cash value of the contract to the Marlins so even though it's on their books, the Red Sox are essentially paying for it. Meanwhile, the Marlins get a player for all the trouble. I'm not asking the Marlins to pay for Pablo. Oh, Ok. Thanks. Sounds like money laundering. Yeah, probably. Basically the same principle of going out to eat and everyone has cash except for the one person with a credit card. Bill goes under their name, but they're still getting paid back.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 29, 2018 15:47:00 GMT -5
If anyone was wondering, Pearce has now taken the last 40 man roster spot. The next move will have to take someone away from the 40 man roster if they added another player before the trade deadline is over.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 29, 2018 15:58:32 GMT -5
If anyone was wondering, Pearce has now taken the last 40 man roster spot. The next move will have to take someone away from the 40 man roster if they added another player before the trade deadline is over. They still have Smith to the 60-day DL before they even have to worry about DFA'ing anyone, and let's face it, Swihart's getting moved in the next couple of weeks. If they needed another spot in the short term they could also put Maddox on the 60-day to kick the can down the road a month or so. Presumably Thornburg's close enough that it wouldn't make sense to move him to the 60. This is the least packed I can recall the 40-man being in a while, frankly.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jun 29, 2018 16:10:56 GMT -5
If anyone was wondering, Pearce has now taken the last 40 man roster spot. The next move will have to take someone away from the 40 man roster if they added another player before the trade deadline is over. They still have Smith to the 60-day DL before they even have to worry about DFA'ing anyone, and let's face it, Swihart's getting moved in the next couple of weeks. If they needed another spot in the short term they could also put Maddox on the 60-day to kick the can down the road a month or so. Presumably Thornburg's close enough that it wouldn't make sense to move him to the 60. This is the least packed I can recall the 40-man being in a while, frankly. I hadn't realized Smith had been 60 day DL'd. Should have assumed that. Man I'm on a role lately. Yeah the 40 man is in good shape as you noted. They could add 2 players rather easily once they trade Swihart.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jun 29, 2018 16:37:56 GMT -5
This was noted earlier in the year, but an update: Santiago Espinal concludes his tenure with Salem with the 4th lowest GB-rate (31.2%) and 9th lowest K-rate (12.5%) out of 193 qualified players in all of High-A. In other words, nobody has been better in High-A this year at combining contact skills and hitting the ball in the air. Did he change his swing path this year? I just read his scouting page and was interested that he had 'below average power potential" but had 7 HR in Salem and a .477 slugging % (.164 ISO). Looks like he was already exceeding his potential because that's some nice pop for a small SS. I don't recall a specific quote or article confirming anything, but his GB rates were 47.2% and 46.2% in 2016 and 2017, respectively. He cut that down to 31.2% this year and saw the improvements across his triple slash line so I think its safe to say he made a conscious effort to lift the ball more. I still don't think there's a ton of pop there, but even fringe average power at the major league level could elevate him to a role 50 type player.
|
|
|
Post by gator39 on Jun 29, 2018 19:17:34 GMT -5
Also Marcus Walden is a guy that would be pretty easy to DFA if need be
|
|
|