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.
2019-2020 Red Sox Offseason
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 13, 2018 10:32:35 GMT -5
I'm okay with JDM making 22 million a year at most to play offense exclusively. He should be a exclusive DH moving forward because of his atrocious defense and huge durability concerns.
JDM isn't going to get better as he ages.
I don't think Chavis ultimately finds a position he can play everyday. He's a tweener and not athletic anywhere. He also has durability concerns and can smoke the ball. That all screams DH to me.
I like the idea of spending at the outfield and middle infield positions (Benny, Mookie, Xander, Pedrioa) and then leaving the DH and 1B positions open for Dalbec, Ockimey, or Chavis.
You need some of these guys panning out if you want to save your costs at certain places where you need to spend.
JDM is playing a position right now in DH that you could save money with later with Chavis or Ockimey.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan50 on Dec 13, 2018 10:35:26 GMT -5
I'm okay with JDM making 22 million a year at most to play offense exclusively. He should be a exclusive DH moving forward because of his atrocious defense and huge durability concerns. JDM isn't going to get better as he ages. I don't think Chavis ultimately finds a position he can play everyday. He's a tweener and not athletic anywhere. He also has durability concerns and can smoke the ball. That all screams DH to me. I like the idea of spending at the outfield and middle infield positions (Benny, Mookie, Xander, Pedrioa) and then leaving the DH and 1B positions open for Dalbec, Ockimey, or Chavis. You need some of these guys panning out if you want to save your costs at certain places where you need to spend. JDM is playing a position right now in DH that you could save money with later. Don't you think Chavis' most likely position will be at 1st base? It seems like a better fit for him.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 13, 2018 10:45:51 GMT -5
I'm okay with JDM making 22 million a year at most to play offense exclusively. He should be a exclusive DH moving forward because of his atrocious defense and huge durability concerns. JDM isn't going to get better as he ages. I don't think Chavis ultimately finds a position he can play everyday. He's a tweener and not athletic anywhere. He also has durability concerns and can smoke the ball. That all screams DH to me. I like the idea of spending at the outfield and middle infield positions (Benny, Mookie, Xander, Pedrioa) and then leaving the DH and 1B positions open for Dalbec, Ockimey, or Chavis. You need some of these guys panning out if you want to save your costs at certain places where you need to spend. JDM is playing a position right now in DH that you could save money with later. Don't you think Chavis' most likely position will be at 1st base? It seems like a better fit for him. He would be the shortest first baseman in baseball if you did that. You want your first baseman to save throws in the air. I'm not sure I would love that idea.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 13, 2018 11:05:24 GMT -5
Don't you think Chavis' most likely position will be at 1st base? It seems like a better fit for him. He would be the shortest first baseman in baseball if you did that. You want your first baseman to save throws in the air. I'm not sure I would love that idea. In a perfect world, sure, but watching Pearce, the guy isn't that all - or at least he doesn't look that tall - that shouldn't be a game breaker. Yaz was a good 1b and he was less than 6 feet tall. Chavis should be athletic enough to handle 1b. And he should have a consistent enough bat to be a decent major league hitter with good pop. And his price is certainly right. I'd be kind of surprised (not shocked given DD's propensity for dealing prospects) if he's not manning 1b for the Sox in 2020. Dalbec is still iffy that he's a major leaguer. I honestly think he will be, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's dealt for a minor league OF they can use when JBJ leaves. I don't think the Sox consider Ockimey a slam dunk as a major leaguer. He's a 3 true outcomes guy who would probably not be a good 1b, so you're talking about a platoon DH. That's not a guy guaranteed to be carried on a roster. And you certainly don't cast JDM aside for Josh Ockimey.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 13, 2018 11:10:10 GMT -5
Chavis' defense reportedly improved at 3rd last season. I posted about it somewhere, so that is a positive development. I don't know that his best fit is on the Red Sox in the long run. I still don't want to move Devers.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 13, 2018 11:49:11 GMT -5
Chavis' defense reportedly improved at 3rd last season. I posted about it somewhere, so that is a positive development. I don't know that his best fit is on the Red Sox in the long run. I still don't want to move Devers. I'd move him off if Dalbec can become a player. He could be a better third baseman than Devers in time.
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 5,279
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Dec 13, 2018 12:03:41 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me if/when JDM opted out that his market wouldn't be all that much different than when the Red Sox originally signed him. As has been brought up teams don't seem as interested anymore in players that are primarily DH only type guys. He will also be two years older at that point and will also have the qualifying offer attached to him which he did not when the Red Sox signed him. Things that will work in his favor though is that he just added another outstanding year to his track record and barring injury should add a second this season. Also another healthy year will dispel some doubts some teams may have had about his lisfranc injury and overall durability. As has been brought up by ericmvan I really wouldn't be surprised if he opted in for 2020 and then opted out the year after looking for one last pay day.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 13, 2018 12:27:49 GMT -5
I have to agree you can keep Martinez by just giving him a little more. Unless some new team is going to go huge for an older DH only type guy. All the NL teams that passed before will pass again because he can't play the field. Unless the Yankees get involved I just don't see the market for him. Most of the AL is rebuilding. The Astros aren't giving him some massive 5 year deal.
|
|
alnipper
Veteran
Living the dream
Posts: 618
|
Post by alnipper on Dec 13, 2018 12:47:24 GMT -5
I'd be curious if we had a very bad first half and what we would do. What luxury tax threashold would we end at? Who would be traded? Obviously I would not want this to happen.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 13, 2018 12:56:31 GMT -5
I have to wonder if the opt-outs for JDM were just in case they expanded the DH to the NL.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 15, 2018 0:46:58 GMT -5
I have to wonder if the opt-outs for JDM were just in case they expanded the DH to the NL. The Red Sox demanded protection because of his lisfranc situation, so as part of the negotiation he then got opt-outs on his end.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2018 8:21:26 GMT -5
The Red Sox have been quietly exploiting a market inefficiency the last 15 years. They get one of the best hitters in baseball as a DH on a pretty suppressed contract because his WAR numbers are lower due to his lack of defense and base running ability. Offensive WAR should be much more costly than defensive WAR on the open market as its rarer. They’ve been getting MVP caliber bats in their lineup for quality prices. It’s brilliant.
First, only half the teams can even think about the guys. Then, only so many have the payroll space to pay a DH that much. Furthermore, the team needs to be ready to compete. Lastly, there needs to be an opening.
So if you took this offseason as an example, what AL team would even be competing to sign a DH like Martinez.
Baltimore - no rebuilding Toronto - no rebuilding Tampa - no payroll Yankees - doubtful fit already so many OF and JD doesn’t play first
KC - no payroll White Sox - maybe Cleveland - no payroll Detroit - no rebuilding Minnesota - no payroll
Texas - maybe but doubtful Seattle - no rebuilding LAA - no fit - pujols and Otahni Oakland - no payroll Houston - yes possible
So there’s a couple teams but none highly motivated except maybe the White Sox to allocate their payroll to a DH.
|
|
|
Post by benfromma on Dec 16, 2018 10:03:14 GMT -5
JD can play outfield but I do realize two things matter after next year his age and the fact he is not a gold glove type outfielder factor in a team's interest in signing him. But if he has a healthy productive season there will also be National league teams interested in him for his bat and what he adds to a clubhouse. The only question at what cost would the AL teams pay for a DH type and National League teams pay for the # of years he can be out in the field without injury in the latter part of the contract. The length of contract will be the biggest issue in his deciding to opt out or not, he would probably want at least two more years with more money. I really like JD and what his bat brings to our lineup and what he brings to the clubhouse but he would be 36 at the end of that contract and has had some health issues in the past. So I would visit the JD contract to see if it something that can worked out to benefit both sides do it otherwise see what the market pays, be involved but don't overpay and have dead money at the end of his contract.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 16, 2018 11:01:27 GMT -5
I have to wonder if the opt-outs for JDM were just in case they expanded the DH to the NL. The Red Sox demanded protection because of his lisfranc situation, so as part of the negotiation he then got opt-outs on his end. I'm going to guess that JDM goes nowhere unless the DH is expanded to the NL. I just don't see another team willing to pay as much as the Red Sox are now. The Red Sox may have to go an extra year or two like what Kershaw did, but that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2018 11:45:04 GMT -5
The Red Sox luxury tax bill was less than $12m last year. It highlights how big of a joke the tax actually is and the fact we let the owners act like it is is awful. That’s pocket change for this group.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Dec 16, 2018 11:49:17 GMT -5
The Red Sox luxury tax bill was less than $12m last year. It highlights how big of a joke the tax actually is and the fact we let the owners act like it is is awful. That’s pocket change for this group. Especially considering they made more money by fielding such a dominant team...
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 16, 2018 18:50:33 GMT -5
The Red Sox luxury tax bill was less than $12m last year. It highlights how big of a joke the tax actually is and the fact we let the owners act like it is is awful. That’s pocket change for this group. Especially considering they made more money by fielding such a dominant team... Working backwards, I estimated that payroll for the Sox this past season amounted to $239.08 million. That's from my understanding of the first-time luxury tax charges under the new rules. The Sox had paid in 2016, but they did not go over the threshold in 2017 so they had reset. Having cleared the third bar by exceeding $237 million, the team will also have it's highest choice in the upcoming draft pushed back ten selections. You'll want to take a dynamic rather than a static view of the process before deciding that it's all a big joke. That joke can get old really fast. The Sox are already over the first and very likely the second threshold for the upcoming season. That's taking into account the remainder of the roster players who will be paid but who are yet to be accounted for. This year the first surcharge tripwire is at $206 million. As a second time CBA payer, the Red Sox will take a 30% hit on the overage. Given that they'll likely exceed that in 2020, that will be at 50% for anything over $208 million. It's likely they'll be over in my view, given the free agent talent they stand to lose otherwise. That's for starters. The second threshold was $217 M this season, that goes to $226 M in 2018 and they'll pay 12% of the overage on that, as they did this year. The third cutoff is $248 M for the upcoming season with a penalty of 45%. That can add up, and while it's just money, the Yankees who were in excess right up to 2017 paid more than one-third of a billion dollars in taxes over that period of time. That isn't exactly pocket change. But the real value is in forgone talent for a team that's too profligate with its spending. From the CBA: ...which is why the Sox were penalized this year. This was the other shoe dropping, the first time that the CBT has impinged on the talent a team needs to replenish itself. So staying above the tax thresholds can get expensive as the years role on. Add to that the lost draft position, and it represents real value, in dollars and young players. That's the primary reason the Sox were the best team this year. The have a core of very solid talent that they developed themselves. That could be much more difficult if they're always drafting at the back of the pack.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 16, 2018 20:24:16 GMT -5
Especially considering they made more money by fielding such a dominant team... Working backwards, I estimated that payroll for the Sox this past season amounted to $239.08 million. That's from my understanding of the first-time luxury tax charges under the new rules. The Sox had paid in 2016, but they did not go over the threshold in 2017 so they had reset. Having cleared the third bar by exceeding $237 million, the team will also have it's highest choice in the upcoming draft pushed back ten selections. You'll want to take a dynamic rather than a static view of the process before deciding that it's all a big joke. That joke can get old really fast. The Sox are already over the first and very likely the second threshold for the upcoming season. That's taking into account the remainder of the roster players who will be paid but who are yet to be accounted for. This year the first surcharge tripwire is at $206 million. As a second time CBA payer, the Red Sox will take a 30% hit on the overage. Given that they'll likely exceed that in 2020, that will be at 50% for anything over $208 million. It's likely they'll be over in my view, given the free agent talent they stand to lose otherwise. That's for starters. The second threshold was $217 M this season, that goes to $226 M in 2018 and they'll pay 12% of the overage on that, as they did this year. The third cutoff is $248 M for the upcoming season with a penalty of 45%. That can add up, and while it's just money, the Yankees who were in excess right up to 2017 paid more than one-third of a billion dollars in taxes over that period of time. That isn't exactly pocket change. But the real value is in forgone talent for a team that's too profligate with its spending. From the CBA: ...which is why the Sox were penalized this year. This was the other shoe dropping, the first time that the CBT has impinged on the talent a team needs to replenish itself. So staying above the tax thresholds can get expensive as the years role on. Add to that the lost draft position, and the it is real value, in dollars and young players. That's the primary reason the Sox were the best team this year. The have a core of very solid talent that they developed themselves. That could be much more difficult if they're always drafting at the back of the pack. That's a point in time viewpoint of a fluid dynamic. Money: The taxes are chump change compared to the increased revenues. NESN had a 24% increase in household viewership this past year and the lions share of that increase was after the All Star break. NESN is a fixed cost company. If there's an increase in costs for one more viewer, it's measured in mills not cents. AD revenues are proportionate to viewership. Young talent: The 10 place drop is small compared to the increase in what prospects you could return for tradable assets that you have accumulated in free agency. A few examples because there are a lot, especially if you also include developed players. Price has a year as expected. He now represents yet one more year less risk for another team. We then go out and sign another free agent starter and keep the prospects. Eovaldi has a 3+ WAR year, imagine the prospects we could get then sign another free agent or replace him with Hernandez. If Feltman and/or Lakins progress as expected, Workman and/or Hembree become trade deadline candidates. ADD: We are likely to see the beginning of that this offseason. What we return for a catcher should far exceed the difference in value between the 34th and 44th draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 16, 2018 21:56:17 GMT -5
If the Red Sox revenue is north of 700 million dollars complaining about 12 million is crazy. Acting like the tax increases are massive just isn't true. The revenue growth more than covers that. The key isn't getting under, it's not going crazy. Up to 40 million is easy for this team. It's the blowing by the tax line by way more than 40 million that adds up rather quick.
By far the biggest cost is the draft pick moving back 10 spots. Even then its not the talent level, its the like 350,000 in slot money, basically a mid 5th round pick. That can hurt you slightly, but nothing that spending that money after the 10th round can't fix. Loading up on 125,000 talent is the new way to win the draft. Compare this cost to signing QO free agents and it's a much better play.
The Giant Yankee total works out to 22.7 million per year, chump change for a team like Yankees. If the Yankees aren't paying the tax, their player expenses ratio to revenue is way too low! 700 million plus TV money and your spending 200 million on players?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Dec 17, 2018 11:10:35 GMT -5
Having one separate business entity subsidizing another has all kinds of financial implications. As one example, you open up your books to a potential buyer and you explain you've been running it in the red and taking a loss for tax purposes. That has an impact the value of that entity. You all fail business 101.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 17, 2018 11:42:26 GMT -5
Having one separate business entity subsidizing another has all kinds of financial implications. As one example, you open up your books to a potential buyer and you explain you've been running it in the red and taking a loss for tax purposes. That has an impact the value of that entity. You all fail business 101. LOL, you must not be familiar with big business in America. ADD I can give you a successful example in your own state. Check out Montag Oil and their subsidiaries. Nancy Montag is a pretty powerful lady.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 17, 2018 16:44:31 GMT -5
Having one separate business entity subsidizing another has all kinds of financial implications. As one example, you open up your books to a potential buyer and you explain you've been running it in the red and taking a loss for tax purposes. That has an impact the value of that entity. You all fail business 101. Norm you get multi national corporations aren't mom and pop guys that own a hair saloon and a bar right? It happens all the time for numerous reasons. How in the world are you going to run in the Red? The Red Sox not counting NESN didn't run in the Red last year, which is a huge part of our point given our payroll. There is no world in where the tax increase makes us run in the Red going 40 million over the tax line just looking at the Red Sox revenue, nevermind NESN. My god to run NESN in the Red your talking about 350-400 million in payroll. Who in the world thinks they should do that? In what world does Henry sell NESN while owning the Red Sox? They are two companies for a bunch of reasons, yet to Henry they are the same. I can't see a new owner buying the Red Sox and not NESN. It's a big part of what makes the Red Sox the Red Sox financially. Nevermind just like the Yankees are doing, if you want to sell you just clean up your books for a few years. They are all part of New England Sports Ventures for example. Edit; I don't even get your main point, as spending revenue from lets say NESN on the Red Sox does nothing to NESNs books. You don't get docked or run in the Red based on how you spend your net revenue. You'd have to be transferring debt or costs to NESN, rather than just using profits. I don't think anyone is saying to do that. I just don't get this whole example.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 18, 2018 8:01:44 GMT -5
Norm, you’re clearly not a season ticket holder. To those of us who they treat like crap and nickel and dime every chance they get while they make money hand over fist that 12m is chump change. It’s not even coming close to changing the bottom line of just the Red Sox from black to red.
Those 10 picks in the draft, while not nothing, are pretty insignificant overall. It’s 10 spots and it’s typically from the 20s to the 30s. Not a huge deal. What’s the expected value difference between the 25th and 35th pick in the draft?
No one is asking them to be completely dumb, but we are expecting them to ignore the tax line when the time comes, which they have done thus far and I do expect them to do again. Waiting out this reliever market right now seems like the smart play.
My comment was about us (and the media) allowing ourselves to think that tax line should be a big deal for the owners. It shouldn’t be.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by gerry on Dec 18, 2018 10:22:50 GMT -5
Norm, you’re clearly not a season ticket holder. To those of us who they treat like crap and nickel and dime every chance they get while they make money hand over fist that 12m is chump change. It’s not even coming close to changing the bottom line of just the Red Sox from black to red. Those 10 picks in the draft, while not nothing, are pretty insignificant overall. It’s 10 spots and it’s typically from the 20s to the 30s. Not a huge deal. What’s the expected value difference between the 25th and 35th pick in the draft? No one is asking them to be completely dumb, but we are expecting them to ignore the tax line when the time comes, which they have done thus far and I do expect them to do again. Waiting out this reliever market right now seems like the smart play. My comment was about us (and the media) allowing ourselves to think that tax line should be a big deal for the owners. It shouldn’t be. You and UMass make compelling cases to keep winning by remaining over the lux cap —- at least until/unless a strike occurs and a more realiztic cap is established? Someone’s gonna do it, and a number of teams actually are. If the goal is winning now, and to profit from winning now, then this seems like a valid business model at this unique time; while the team is grappling with keeping their exceptional core.together and the window open. It’s not a sustainable model though, more of a short term opportunity. As discussed for several years, “the kids” are aging and neither the Farm nor acquisition can readily replace them. No team can support a preponderance of $25-$30M players. So flying above the cap through this wide open window is an affordable strategy to win now but will, sooner than later, of its own weight, force the window closed. After an amazing run that seems well worth it.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 18, 2018 16:53:20 GMT -5
The Red Sox spent a record amount on payroll for them, a record tax amount, had a pick moved back. Yet if you look at combined revenue and things like increasing the value of the team, they had one of their best years as owners. Lot of different ways to make revenue and money. It doesn't always involve cutting costs and not paying taxes. Just ask the Yankees.
RJP I've seen using last years money, the difference was like $350,000 million. Equal to a mid 5th round pick in 2018 draft dollars. The money is by far and away the biggest difference. The difference in talent is almost non-existent. If Kimbrel leaves you have an extra pick and more total money.
|
|
|