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 $4.5m over CBT in 2022
|
Post by xdmo on Sept 20, 2022 15:06:35 GMT -5
Hill was on the IL on the deadline day, Nate had literally just come back the night before it after missing a month, and JD had I think 2 hits in the 17 GAMES leading up to it. Nobody was asking Boston for these guys. Well, the Sox paid Paxton 6 million to pitch 1/3 of a minor league inning this year. That could be part of the "scrutiny part." Yeah they paid Paxton for potentially next year, but by the end of this year he was supposed to demonstrate his arm was healthy and good to go for 2023. He got hurt trying to prove that. He's always been hurt his whole career. Maybe there was no reason for him to get the 6 million this year from the Sox. Trade deadline time, they asked for "the moon with Eovaldi." You can't trade a guy when your front office overvalues a player. Clearing out Eovaldi just for B type prospects could have opened the door to go over the tax in future years and get more value for QO free agents like Xander (maybe Wacha) this off-season.
|
|
|
Post by billw on Sept 20, 2022 15:18:44 GMT -5
Being 4.5 million over cap and finishing last is the absolute definition of roster mismanagement. The BONEHEAD BRADLEY TRADE made a huge contribution to both of these outcomes
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Sept 20, 2022 15:26:20 GMT -5
Hill was on the IL on the deadline day, Nate had literally just come back the night before it after missing a month, and JD had I think 2 hits in the 17 GAMES leading up to it. Nobody was asking Boston for these guys. Well, the Sox paid Paxton 6 million to pitch 1/3 of a minor league inning this year. That could be part of the "scrutiny part." Yeah they paid Paxton for potentially next year, but by the end of this year he was supposed to demonstrate his arm was healthy and good to go for 2023. He got hurt trying to prove that. He's always been hurt his whole career. Maybe there was no reason for him to get the 6 million this year from the Sox. Trade deadline time, they asked for "the moon with Eovaldi." You can't trade a guy when your front office overvalues a player. Clearing out Eovaldi just for B type prospects could have opened the door to go over the tax in future years and get more value for QO free agents like Xander (maybe Wacha) this off-season. OK, but Nate alone wouldn't have gotten them under the tax, it had to be JD, or at least that's what was reported at the time. They chose to do right by the vets and let them make a run at it and not blow it up. They were still in the race at the deadline, unfortunately your 3-4-5 in the lineup vanished into thin air
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 21, 2022 12:21:28 GMT -5
Moved this discussion (to some degree at least) of the the weird "should they blow it up" thread. Well, the Sox paid Paxton 6 million to pitch 1/3 of a minor league inning this year. That could be part of the "scrutiny part." Yeah they paid Paxton for potentially next year, but by the end of this year he was supposed to demonstrate his arm was healthy and good to go for 2023. He got hurt trying to prove that. He's always been hurt his whole career. Maybe there was no reason for him to get the 6 million this year from the Sox. Trade deadline time, they asked for "the moon with Eovaldi." You can't trade a guy when your front office overvalues a player. Clearing out Eovaldi just for B type prospects could have opened the door to go over the tax in future years and get more value for QO free agents like Xander (maybe Wacha) this off-season. OK, but Nate alone wouldn't have gotten them under the tax, it had to be JD, or at least that's what was reported at the time. They chose to do right by the vets and let them make a run at it and not blow it up. They were still in the race at the deadline, unfortunately your 3-4-5 in the lineup vanished into thin air I don't know that I ever saw that reported myself, but as a point of information, if they're $4.5m over as now reported, that means they basically had to move about $13m in real salary before factoring in cash heading from one team to another - in other words, either Eovaldi or JDM could've worked if you could've moved their entire salary, or more specifically, Eovaldi plus something like $1.2M or JDM plus roughly $1.9M, and gotten under. But the other part of that is this. Here's the difference, other than paying tax, of going over or not: 1) Future desire to get under the cap (no third year to lose rev sharing, etc,.) - starts the clock on this. 2) If signing a QO free agent, now must also give up 5th pick and lose an extra $500k in IFA money. 3) If losing a QO free agent, comp pick falls back from ~75 to ~135. Is that a big deal? Maybe. I do think they'd have approached the deadline differently if the knew Sale wasn't coming back and they were only getting 2 more starts from Eovaldi. What they thought instead was they were 2 games back and would get Story, Wacha, and Sale back soon in addition to the recently activated Hill and Eovaldi. I get the analysis of "we can still be in this," and determining the above is worth it, although I also get disagreeing with it.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Sept 21, 2022 12:36:06 GMT -5
Reinforces my thought that not selling more at the deadline was a mistake. I know reports were they wanted big offers for Eovaldi/Martinez but felt like it made no sense to keep them around the team just wasn’t very good. Now any QO free agent they sign has to really be good because I’d hate to pay the money + the penalties it comes with.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 21, 2022 12:43:03 GMT -5
Reinforces my thought that not selling more at the deadline was a mistake. I know reports were they wanted big offers for Eovaldi/Martinez but felt like it made no sense to keep them around the team just wasn’t very good. Now any QO free agent they sign has to really be good because I’d hate to pay the money + the penalties it comes with.It is one of a few factors that has shifted the calculus a little more in favor of re-signing Bogaerts (along with Bogaerts' improved defense, Story's demonstrated value as a second baseman, and their failure to extend Devers).
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Sept 21, 2022 12:56:03 GMT -5
Kinda funny,they appeased their veterans at the deadline, said vets crapped the bed, and now they've ended up bitching anyways about a 3rd catcher being dumped. Sometimes you just can't win. Kodai Senga won't cost a pick, there's your starting pitcher solution.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 21, 2022 12:58:27 GMT -5
Reinforces my thought that not selling more at the deadline was a mistake. I know reports were they wanted big offers for Eovaldi/Martinez but felt like it made no sense to keep them around the team just wasn’t very good. Now any QO free agent they sign has to really be good because I’d hate to pay the money + the penalties it comes with.It is one of a few factors that has shifted the calculus a little more in favor of re-signing Bogaerts (along with Bogaerts' improved defense, Story's demonstrated value as a second baseman, and their failure to extend Devers). I guess, but keep in mind that the pick they'd get for Bogaerts replaces the 5th pick they lose, essentially.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,279
|
Post by cdj on Sept 21, 2022 13:31:03 GMT -5
I think they’ll probably come in a little under next year
|
|
|
Post by taiwansox on Sept 21, 2022 13:35:34 GMT -5
Basically the question is, was Binelas/Hamilton worth going over the luxury tax limit? Paxton made some sense in terms of 2023 depth (even if he makes Buchholz look like an iron man), but the Bradley trade will look even worse if neither prospect makes it to the majors
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,946
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 21, 2022 13:47:15 GMT -5
Being 4.5 million over cap and finishing last is the absolute definition of roster mismanagement. The BONEHEAD BRADLEY TRADE made a huge contribution to both of these outcomes I have a mind to block anyone who uses the phrase "finishing last" henceforth.
The Sox are on a pace to win 84 games in a neutral division. Given the insane amount of injuries, that's pretty good. And every single players stat has been clobbered by their playing 47% of the time against opponents who collectively are good enough to play .580 ball outside the division.
To say you finished last in a division where the average team was a 94-win team says absolutely nothing.
Roster mismanagement? The first thing they did was let Eduardo Rodriguez walk for 5/$77M ($15.4 for 2023 AAV) and sign Michael Wacha for $7M.
That's 4.2 wins added, $8.4M saved, and as a penalty for this gross mismanagement they were forced to draft and sign Roman Anthony (compensation pick), the current #11 prospect.
Meanwhile, the JBJ mistake cost them 1.2 wins (1.9 Renfroe, -0.4 JBJ, 1.1 Refsnyder) but that's without adjusting for the division. It's less than a win in reality.
I am proud of my contributions to this board, but the thing I am proudest about this year is that I never even clicked on the "Is Bloom Good at his Job" thread.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,930
|
Post by nomar on Sept 21, 2022 13:50:12 GMT -5
Really sucks that they didn’t get under at the deadline. But a culture where you fold just because things might not work out isn’t what I want either. Hindsight is 20/20, but it’s not worth crying over the decision not to sell at the deadline.
Hopefully the farm keeps being built up so in a few years the LT threshold doesn’t feel like big brother watching. Can’t keep using the checkbook alone to fill holes. A good sustainable farm is the best way to keep payroll in check.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 14,279
|
Post by cdj on Sept 21, 2022 14:00:22 GMT -5
Really sucks that they didn’t get under at the deadline. But a culture where you fold just because things might not work out isn’t what I want either. Hindsight is 20/20, but it’s not worth crying over the decision not to sell at the deadline. Hopefully the farm keeps being built up so in a few years the LT threshold doesn’t feel like big brother watching. Can’t keep using the checkbook alone to fill holes. A good sustainable farm is the best way to keep payroll in check. Agreed. It’s not like we had like a 3% chance to get into the playoffs at the deadline, there was still a realistic chance. Just didn’t work out for a number of reasons (including our best players hitting like minor leaguers for an extended period of time)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,946
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 21, 2022 14:01:27 GMT -5
But the other part of that is this. Here's the difference, other than paying tax, of going over or not: 1) Future desire to get under the cap (no third year to lose rev sharing, etc,.) - starts the clock on this. 2) If signing a QO free agent, now must also give up 5th pick and lose an extra $500k in IFA money. 3) If losing a QO free agent, comp pick falls back from ~75 to ~135. Is that a big deal? Maybe. I do think they'd have approached the deadline differently if the knew Sale wasn't coming back and they were only getting 2 more starts from Eovaldi. What they thought instead was they were 2 games back and would get Story, Wacha, and Sale back soon in addition to the recently activated Hill and Eovaldi. I get the analysis of "we can still be in this," and determining the above is worth it, although I also get disagreeing with it. I don't see them either signing or losing a QO guy.
Right now I'm looking at Tyler Nayquin for RF (wait till I post the argument!) and Joc Pederson, already a platoon player, at DH. As I've said already, the extra rotation guy would likely be a #3 starter type that they think has unrealized upside. Sale, Wacha, Bello, Pivetta is already a very solid post-season rotation so you're looking for one more guy who's better than MLB average (definition of a #3) for depth. And that's in addition to Whitlock and Crawford.
They really want to stay under the tax limit and as I understand it, that's doable.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 21, 2022 14:12:39 GMT -5
Really sucks that they didn’t get under at the deadline. But a culture where you fold just because things might not work out isn’t what I want either. Hindsight is 20/20, but it’s not worth crying over the decision not to sell at the deadline.Hopefully the farm keeps being built up so in a few years the LT threshold doesn’t feel like big brother watching. Can’t keep using the checkbook alone to fill holes. A good sustainable farm is the best way to keep payroll in check. Yeah, imagine the response if at the trade deadline, when they had 30% playoff odds, they had dumped a bunch of veterans, not to get prospects - the veterans in question just didn't have that much trade value - but solely to get under the luxury tax limit. What a bleak scene that would have been.
The more legitimate complaint about being over the tax limit, I think, is that if they were gonna go over why not go over by more to sign another outfielder at the start of the season? Everything seems to come back around to the weird mismanagement of RF.
|
|
|
Post by stevedillard on Sept 21, 2022 15:12:07 GMT -5
Really sucks that they didn’t get under at the deadline. But a culture where you fold just because things might not work out isn’t what I want either. Hindsight is 20/20, but it’s not worth crying over the decision not to sell at the deadline. First, they’re finishing in last place Second, what kind of culture are you building when you have about 8 guys who will be there next year? Third, it’s not hindsight when you know it going in (or at least the majority do). Fourth, I’d rather a culture of “folding” with a bad hand than having to cash out with a good hand (giving away generational guys because you’re over the cap). Fifth, if competing is the mentality, then build a team from the outset that didn’t have obvious holes Sixth, be bold and trade JDM and Eovaldi when it’s clear you are not going to be in it. It may be unpopular but you make hard decisions (Nomar) Yeah, imagine the response if at the trade deadline, when they had 30% playoff odds, they had dumped a bunch of veterans, not to get prospects - the veterans in question just didn't have that much trade value - but solely to get under the luxury tax limit. What a bleak scene that would have been. When they told me the luxury tax was important enough to need to give away Mookie, I was unhappy but understood. The dumping of JDM would have been a tiny nick compared to those cuts (and maybe even a positive). If you are going to justify having to make hard choices every three years because of the cumulative LT penalties, then make an easy one to defer those later hard ones.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxpride34 on Sept 21, 2022 15:53:31 GMT -5
Really sucks that they didn’t get under at the deadline. But a culture where you fold just because things might not work out isn’t what I want either. Hindsight is 20/20, but it’s not worth crying over the decision not to sell at the deadline. First, they’re finishing in last place Second, what kind of culture are you building when you have about 8 guys who will be there next year? Third, it’s not hindsight when you know it going in (or at least the majority do). Fourth, I’d rather a culture of “folding” with a bad hand than having to cash out with a good hand (giving away generational guys because you’re over the cap). Fifth, if competing is the mentality, then build a team from the outset that didn’t have obvious holes Sixth, be bold and trade JDM and Eovaldi when it’s clear you are not going to be in it. It may be unpopular but you make hard decisions (Nomar) Totally agree. I'd rather a FO that can be honest with themselves and make the right moves for the future of the team. Were they technically still in it at the deadline? yes. But the reality was that the team had a lot of holes and the odds of them actually making the playoffs, let alone making a run were very slim at best. Trading nate and JD was absolutely the smart choice to make on multiple fronts. 1) you get value before they leave for nothing 2) get under the tax(delays the window and penalties for signing QO FA's) 3) open up roster spots for young players who can help the team in 2023.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,930
|
Post by nomar on Sept 21, 2022 16:27:00 GMT -5
Really sucks that they didn’t get under at the deadline. But a culture where you fold just because things might not work out isn’t what I want either. Hindsight is 20/20, but it’s not worth crying over the decision not to sell at the deadline. First, they’re finishing in last place Second, what kind of culture are you building when you have about 8 guys who will be there next year? Third, it’s not hindsight when you know it going in (or at least the majority do). Fourth, I’d rather a culture of “folding” with a bad hand than having to cash out with a good hand (giving away generational guys because you’re over the cap). Fifth, if competing is the mentality, then build a team from the outset that didn’t have obvious holes Sixth, be bold and trade JDM and Eovaldi when it’s clear you are not going to be in it. It may be unpopular but you make hard decisions (Nomar) Yeah, imagine the response if at the trade deadline, when they had 30% playoff odds, they had dumped a bunch of veterans, not to get prospects - the veterans in question just didn't have that much trade value - but solely to get under the luxury tax limit. What a bleak scene that would have been. When they told me the luxury tax was important enough to need to give away Mookie, I was unhappy but understood. The dumping of JDM would have been a tiny nick compared to those cuts (and maybe even a positive). If you are going to justify having to make hard choices every three years because of the cumulative LT penalties, then make an easy one to defer those later hard ones. Their playoff odds at the deadline were what they were. Did I think they would make the playoffs at the time? No I didn’t, but that doesn’t mean you or I knew for a fact that they wouldn’t. That’s confirmation bias. And the “culture”/“folding” I was referring to was more about the front office than the actual roster. I thought context would have made that clear. Obviously everyone should expect a lot of roster turnover this year and in the future (by way of fewer long term deals). Also, did you really just offer “build a team with no holes” as a solution for the holes in this team? Genius. Why didn’t Bloom think of that? The team wasn’t perfect going into the year (RF, 1B, bullpen were very suspect), but most models had them as a team in the playoff chase. And that’s what they were until the SP injuries piled on, even with the lack of offense. I know a lot of people will share your feelings/sentiment so to each their own. We’ll see what they can do this offseason.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Sept 21, 2022 16:38:28 GMT -5
But the other part of that is this. Here's the difference, other than paying tax, of going over or not: 1) Future desire to get under the cap (no third year to lose rev sharing, etc,.) - starts the clock on this. 2) If signing a QO free agent, now must also give up 5th pick and lose an extra $500k in IFA money. 3) If losing a QO free agent, comp pick falls back from ~75 to ~135. Is that a big deal? Maybe. I do think they'd have approached the deadline differently if the knew Sale wasn't coming back and they were only getting 2 more starts from Eovaldi. What they thought instead was they were 2 games back and would get Story, Wacha, and Sale back soon in addition to the recently activated Hill and Eovaldi. I get the analysis of "we can still be in this," and determining the above is worth it, although I also get disagreeing with it. I don't see them either signing or losing a QO guy. Right now I'm looking at Tyler Nayquin for RF (wait till I post the argument!) and Joc Pederson, already a platoon player, at DH. As I've said already, the extra rotation guy would likely be a #3 starter type that they think has unrealized upside. Sale, Wacha, Bello, Pivetta is already a very solid post-season rotation, so you're looking for one more guy who's better than MLB average (definition of a #3) for depth. And that's in addition to Whitlock and Crawford. They really want to stay under the tax limit and as I understand it, that's doable.
A few questions on this, Eric: If they let Xander walk, who's the 5.0+ fWAR SS without taking a QO guy? Or do they punt on that WAR and try to get it at another position? If so, what position and at what price? And who platoons with Pederson at DH vs. lefties? Wacha just had the second-best year of his career. Do we think he'll repeat that performance (2.2 fWAR)? His agent will certainly try to sell the market that he can. He will definitely get multiple years - maybe 3 - and a 2.2. fWAR translates into about $18M in AAV. Will the Sox give him 3 years at that price or, say, $16M, and more importantly, will he be worth it? I personally and a huge fan of Sale, but the data say he may not be good for more than 20 starts no matter what kind of awesome shape he shows up in at Spring Training. Also, how many innings do you project for Whitlock as a starter? From 2019 to 2022, he's not thrown more than 80 in a single season. I know he did throw 120 one year (2018), but that’ll be 5 years ago come 2023. Is it realistic to expect more than 100-110 innings from him as a starter? If not, who takes his place, or should he stay in the pen? Finally, Casas vs. lefties in AAA (71 PAs) had an OPS of .619. Versus AA pitching (69 PAs) his .OPS was identical at .619. Do they hold him in AAA for control and to get six-eight weeks more worth of PAs. If not, who spells him vs. lefties? Hosmer had an outlier year in 2022 vs. lefties with a .772 OPS, but in 2021 he was more like Casas at .676. I find it difficult to depend on Hosmer repeating an outlier year. Also, since 2018, Hosmer has been a sub 1.0 fWAR player. That seems like the kind of first basemen we've been regretting all this season, so he does not seem like a credible placeholder. I would love it if the get under, but if they do, I fail to see how they compete for a wild card given that we should assume the AL East alone will have 4 other legit contenders next year.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Sept 21, 2022 17:01:54 GMT -5
Moved this discussion (to some degree at least) of the the weird "should they blow it up" thread. OK, but Nate alone wouldn't have gotten them under the tax, it had to be JD, or at least that's what was reported at the time. They chose to do right by the vets and let them make a run at it and not blow it up. They were still in the race at the deadline, unfortunately your 3-4-5 in the lineup vanished into thin air I don't know that I ever saw that reported myself, but as a point of information, if they're $4.5m over as now reported, that means they basically had to move about $13m in real salary before factoring in cash heading from one team to another - in other words, either Eovaldi or JDM could've worked if you could've moved their entire salary, or more specifically, Eovaldi plus something like $1.2M or JDM plus roughly $1.9M, and gotten under. But the other part of that is this. Here's the difference, other than paying tax, of going over or not: 1) Future desire to get under the cap (no third year to lose rev sharing, etc,.) - starts the clock on this. 2) If signing a QO free agent, now must also give up 5th pick and lose an extra $500k in IFA money. 3) If losing a QO free agent, comp pick falls back from ~75 to ~135. Is that a big deal? Maybe. I do think they'd have approached the deadline differently if the knew Sale wasn't coming back and they were only getting 2 more starts from Eovaldi. What they thought instead was they were 2 games back and would get Story, Wacha, and Sale back soon in addition to the recently activated Hill and Eovaldi. I get the analysis of "we can still be in this," and determining the above is worth it, although I also get disagreeing with it. Agreed, it is not like Bloom & Co. had a crystal ball and could see Sale’s broken finger, Eovaldi’s return to the IL, and the rest of the assorted injuries. Had those not happened they may have been able to make the wild card considering they were only TWO games back. It was certainly not insurmountable.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Sept 21, 2022 17:08:29 GMT -5
Reinforces my thought that not selling more at the deadline was a mistake. I know reports were they wanted big offers for Eovaldi/Martinez but felt like it made no sense to keep them around the team just wasn’t very good. Now any QO free agent they sign has to really be good because I’d hate to pay the money + the penalties it comes with.It is one of a few factors that has shifted the calculus a little more in favor of re-signing Bogaerts (along with Bogaerts' improved defense, Story's demonstrated value as a second baseman, and their failure to extend Devers). IMO, Bogaerts will be re-signed for a lot of the reasons you just outlined. I do not know if that will help influence Devers to re-sign, but keeping Bogaerts makes more sense now than ever!
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Sept 21, 2022 17:18:47 GMT -5
But the other part of that is this. Here's the difference, other than paying tax, of going over or not: 1) Future desire to get under the cap (no third year to lose rev sharing, etc,.) - starts the clock on this. 2) If signing a QO free agent, now must also give up 5th pick and lose an extra $500k in IFA money. 3) If losing a QO free agent, comp pick falls back from ~75 to ~135. Is that a big deal? Maybe. I do think they'd have approached the deadline differently if the knew Sale wasn't coming back and they were only getting 2 more starts from Eovaldi. What they thought instead was they were 2 games back and would get Story, Wacha, and Sale back soon in addition to the recently activated Hill and Eovaldi. I get the analysis of "we can still be in this," and determining the above is worth it, although I also get disagreeing with it. I don't see them either signing or losing a QO guy.
Right now I'm looking at Tyler Nayquin for RF (wait till I post the argument!) and Joc Pederson, already a platoon player, at DH. As I've said already, the extra rotation guy would likely be a #3 starter type that they think has unrealized upside. Sale, Wacha, Bello, Pivetta is already a very solid post-season rotation so you're looking for one more guy who's better than MLB average (definition of a #3) for depth. And that's in addition to Whitlock and Crawford.
They really want to stay under the tax limit and as I understand it, that's doable.
Agreed that the Red Sox neither sign or loose a QO player as I see Bogaerts and Wacha re-signing, and JD and Eovaldi not being offered one.
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Sept 21, 2022 17:23:25 GMT -5
Really sucks that they didn’t get under at the deadline. But a culture where you fold just because things might not work out isn’t what I want either. Hindsight is 20/20, but it’s not worth crying over the decision not to sell at the deadline.Hopefully the farm keeps being built up so in a few years the LT threshold doesn’t feel like big brother watching. Can’t keep using the checkbook alone to fill holes. A good sustainable farm is the best way to keep payroll in check. Yeah, imagine the response if at the trade deadline, when they had 30% playoff odds, they had dumped a bunch of veterans, not to get prospects - the veterans in question just didn't have that much trade value - but solely to get under the luxury tax limit. What a bleak scene that would have been.
The more legitimate complaint about being over the tax limit, I think, is that if they were gonna go over why not go over by more to sign another outfielder at the start of the season? Everything seems to come back around to the weird mismanagement of RF.
The Red Sox could have easily signed Pham over the offseason and moved Verdugo to RF. JBJ may have done ok if he were just a 4th outfielder. That was the biggest head scratcher for me for the entire season. Had that production been available the whole season the Red Sox would have been in a much better spot at the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Sept 21, 2022 19:22:26 GMT -5
Eric Van wrote: "I am proud of my contributions to this board, but the thing I am proudest about this year is that I never even clicked on the "Is Bloom Good at his Job" thread."
Neither did I, and I am similarly pleased with myself.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,423
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Sept 21, 2022 19:46:00 GMT -5
I’m not relitigating moves, but being $4.5 over is hard to defend. If the season was not our year, cut that wee amount. If it was a year they could contend, go over by more than a hair. This is more like an accounting error than a payroll plan.
|
|
|