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.
|
Post by adamgregory81 on Mar 7, 2024 13:46:27 GMT -5
Given the persistent inflationary climate; I suspect that certainty is a good thing for the club as well. I was thinking this during the winter of 10+ year contracts last year or the year before - if you discount payments that are 10 years into the future by 5%, it equates to about $0.60 on the dollar, if you discount those same payments at 10%, it’s about $0.38 on the dollar. Point being - inflation was so immaterial for so long, it probably wasn’t given enough coverage during these post-COVID years with respect to baseball salaries.
There also has to be a benefit to avoiding arbitration, and avoiding negotiations every year - it’s a part of the business, I know, but I feel like you hear if a few cases every year of how that process soured the relationship between the player and the club.
On a similar note would be curious to hear if anyone has seen any studies that track the profitability of a franchise to the longevity of the players on the team. That is, clearly a team is more profitable if it wins, but I’d suspect that a team that wins with a core of homegrown/long time players does even better, and has more sustained success.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Mar 7, 2024 13:52:22 GMT -5
I don’t really understand your point. What people mean by “it’s not a good enough deal for the Sox” is that they are already guaranteed to have him at a very modest rate over the next five years. The point of signing the extension is to reduce the AAV of his age ~29-31 seasons by moving some of that money forward (mostly in an accounting sense). If the way they’re accomplishing that is by tacking on two years at a high salary—one that he has not yet proven himself worthy of—then that doesn’t really accomplish anything for the Red Sox. They might as well just go year to year. It’s not like Bello is going to sign for 7/45 or something, because that also doesn’t accomplish anything for him. Might as well bet on himself and go year to year if that’s the best the team is offering. It’s the same exact thing, just from the opposite perspective. In order for these pre-arb extensions to come together, team and player both need to compromise to come up with something that’s mutually beneficial, otherwise a deal won’t get signed. I don’t see what’s “gross” about discussing the potential parameters of an extension within that framework. It’s just the reality of it. This is a multi-billion dollar business. If you think the point of long term extensions is to reduce future AAV, then you will never understand my point. Because I think you are looking at it the wrong way. If that was truly the point, then it would be true that the Sox would be fine paying Bello exactly what he will earn over the next 6-9 years, they just want to manage the AAV, right? And the two parties are just negotiating over how soon Bello gets his money and how well the Sox manage his AAV? But if the Sox end up guaranteeing what Bello would have made anyway, that would be a terrible deal for the Sox because they will have assume a ton of risk more a small gain. The two parties are negotiating over how big a discount Bello should take to offset the Sox risk. The better the deal is for the Sox the bigger the discount Bello agrees to. That's what some people are rooting for. If you are open to considering why you are wrong, you might think about why teams like the Brewers try to sign players like Chourio to long term deals. Is it more logical to think that the point in that deal is to move around AAV due to luxury tax considerations or is it more likely the point is that the Brewers are hoping to reduce the amount of money that Chourio going year to year would make? Since the Brewers will never be near the luxury tax, then the former makes no sense. It's either the latter or something else. I'm open to "something else", but it isn't managing AAV. Are you arguing that ~10 teams look to long term deals to manage AAV, but the other 20 teams do it to pay young players less money? That makes no sense. Those 10 teams will try to do both. I get your point, and I’ll concede that there’s a more precise way to describe the motivations teams have to sign these long-term extensions. My main point was that an extension is only going to come together if it improves the long-term outlook for both sides. Bello is giving up some earning potential in order to get a slight bump over what he’d probably have gotten in arbitration, plus a guaranteed salary for an FA season that would pay him like the solidly above average starter we’re all expecting him to become. The Red Sox take on the risk that he never quite gets to that projection, and the injury risk is shifted from player to team, but they get the benefit of 1) a luxury tax number that is likely to be a bargain for Bello’s prime years and 2) the potential for a tidy discount for his first two FA years if he hits his ceiling. It’s a contract that works all around in a way that a lot of the numbers floating around yesterday didn’t. I think that was more the point people were making yesterday than some fear that Bello would be an anchor around their neck that would prevent them from spending. Regardless, Brayan Bello will be around for the long haul, and it’s far more enjoyable to celebrate that than to get caught up in the weeds of whether or not this is an optimal salary structure for the Red Sox. Cheers to some good news to round out an offseason that had precious little of it.
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Mar 7, 2024 14:00:54 GMT -5
I think the odds of Montgomery are really low, but I don't think this necessarily rules him out from a LT perspective. For one thing he might sign to an AAV < $23M, but also they could still trade Kenley. Add: of course if Cotillo's right that Henry's cash budget is like right where they are now and they didn't have Giolito insurance then Montgomery probably has been ruled out for a while. That is all possible but with moving parts of having to shed salary and I don't see Montgomery signing for less than 23AAV I just don't see it happening at all. Not going to continue to have any optimism they're able to get something done there. If they do get something done all the better I will be happily surprised, if they don't at this point no disappointment anymore. That is a very valid point in terms of actual $s vs AAV $s. The actual real world dollars spent is probably roughly the same today as it was yesterday. So I guess perhaps I should keep the door at least a sliver open in my head. One thing to keep in mind is that, while I trust @redsoxpayroll, these estimates do tend to vary. I think Fangraphs has the total at $4 million less, for example, and $27 million feels like enough for Montgomery even on a pillow contract.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 7, 2024 14:14:41 GMT -5
This guy was saying yesterday that it would be a "good piece of business" for the Red Sox to have this contract kick in next year; now it's a good piece of business to have it kick in this year. The point is: no matter what the Red Sox do, they're doing it to save John Henry money.
Meanwhile, what the team has actually done this offseason is allocate $31 million to this year's luxury tax payroll solely for the sake of future value ($17 million for Sale, $5 million for Hendriks, $9 million for Bello). I'd love it if they topped it off by eating Jansen's salary in a trade for prospects.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Mar 7, 2024 14:20:16 GMT -5
Interesting that they brought up Hunter Greene as a comp and then went over his deal. I think everyone would rather have Greene in the real world.. Bello is at 214 IP at one year of service, which is a high number. I think IP matters a lot in arb.
I think they structured the deal trying to pay him a fair/typical amount for six years and then making the fair trade of guaranteeing those earnings in exchange for a club option year. I just think they shot a little high with these salary estimates, but whatever
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Mar 7, 2024 14:21:21 GMT -5
Wow Red Sox Payroll Twitter account is fast! They've already put Bello to $9.16 AAV. That puts their projected LT # at $214.07M, 22.93 under the LT threshold. I'd given up on Montgomery for the most part but I think this might close the door on that completely. They aren't going over the LT, I suppose they could still carve out some more room if they really wanted Montgomery but don't see it happen and personally I won't be entertaining the possibility in my head anymore. I think the odds of Montgomery are really low, but I don't think this necessarily rules him out from a LT perspective. For one thing he might sign to an AAV < $23M, but also they could still trade Kenley. Add: of course if Cotillo's right that Henry's cash budget is like right where they are now and they didn't have Giolito insurance then Montgomery probably has been ruled out for a while. I think it kind of rules out Montgomery barring a Kenley trade which isnt happening now with him injured. Yes they could slide in just under 23 million AAV but there would be little room to maneuver in July if they were trying to improve the team if the objective is to stay under the limit.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Mar 7, 2024 14:27:35 GMT -5
I think the odds of Montgomery are really low, but I don't think this necessarily rules him out from a LT perspective. For one thing he might sign to an AAV < $23M, but also they could still trade Kenley. Add: of course if Cotillo's right that Henry's cash budget is like right where they are now and they didn't have Giolito insurance then Montgomery probably has been ruled out for a while. I think it kind of rules out Montgomery barring a Kenley trade which isnt happening now with him injured. Yes they could slide in just under 23 million AAV but there would be little room to maneuver in July if they were trying to improve the team if the objective is to stay under the limit. If they thought they were going to make the playoffs they might be willing to go over the LTT.
They might also have a standing offer to Montgomery of a $19-20 million AAV which they're determined not to go over, and the Bello AAV might *conveniently* demonstrate to Boras that that is in fact a hard limit for them; and Montgomery might yet sign for that. I wouldn't predict that he will, but the Red Sox may be leaving open the possibility.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Mar 7, 2024 14:49:32 GMT -5
I think the odds of Montgomery are really low, but I don't think this necessarily rules him out from a LT perspective. For one thing he might sign to an AAV < $23M, but also they could still trade Kenley. Add: of course if Cotillo's right that Henry's cash budget is like right where they are now and they didn't have Giolito insurance then Montgomery probably has been ruled out for a while. I think it kind of rules out Montgomery barring a Kenley trade which isnt happening now with him injured. Yes they could slide in just under 23 million AAV but there would be little room to maneuver in July if they were trying to improve the team if the objective is to stay under the limit. Worrying about leaving room for additions in July so much that you make the team worse for the entirety of the season seems like it would be putting the cart before the horse. But I don't think they're doing that. I think they're either A) actually being cheap, as Cotillo keeps saying, or B) still negotiating/going to sign one of the four options left. It's plausible enough to me that they don't like Montgomery or Snell as a long term bet and don't want to hurt rosters in a couple years, but that does not apply to Lorenzen or Clevinger (or a bunch of guys they passed on already, but perhaps Giolito's injury changes things).
|
|
|
Post by notstarboard on Mar 7, 2024 14:55:20 GMT -5
Interesting that they brought up Hunter Greene as a comp and then went over his deal. I think everyone would rather have Greene in the real world.. Bello is at 214 IP at one year of service, which is a high number. I think IP matters a lot in arb. I think they structured the deal trying to pay him a fair/typical amount for six years and then making the fair trade of guaranteeing those earnings in exchange for a club option year. I just think they shot a little high with these salary estimates, but whatever Well, Greene was last year; the deals are basically the same. I'm also not sure I'd rather have Greene, as they've had pretty similar production thus far. Greene has the loud fastball, but Bello has the GB% and tasty changeup. If we ignore draft hype, which we should, I would have a hard time choosing, and that's also what their contracts say.
|
|
|
Post by chaimtime on Mar 7, 2024 15:43:54 GMT -5
I think it kind of rules out Montgomery barring a Kenley trade which isnt happening now with him injured. Yes they could slide in just under 23 million AAV but there would be little room to maneuver in July if they were trying to improve the team if the objective is to stay under the limit. Worrying about leaving room for additions in July so much that you make the team worse for the entirety of the season seems like it would be putting the cart before the horse. But I don't think they're doing that. I think they're either A) actually being cheap, as Cotillo keeps saying, or B) still negotiating/going to sign one of the four options left. It's plausible enough to me that they don't like Montgomery or Snell as a long term bet and don't want to hurt rosters in a couple years, but that does not apply to Lorenzen or Clevinger (or a bunch of guys they passed on already, but perhaps Giolito's injury changes things). I do think that if they could sell one of those guys on a 1/10ish deal to come compete for a spot in the rotation, they’d probably have done it already. My hunch is that they’re waiting for a more guaranteed rotation spot. I don’t think this is a super attractive team to sign with if you’re a starter trying to set himself up for a better payday next year. There’s a good chance the team just isn’t very good, there’s a good chance that the defense isn’t very good, and there’s a good chance that they don’t even start the season in the rotation. So it’s a bit of a tough sell.
|
|
|
Post by orion09 on Mar 7, 2024 16:04:18 GMT -5
Just a point about AAV and WAR/$: keep in mind that the the value *isn’t* in a WAR/$ saving over going year-to-year, necessarily (though that could happen too, if he turns out to be an ace). It’s in the utility of the two extra FA years at market rate *without* having to sign him to a 4-6 year deal *after* he hits FA.
So you pay potentially a bit more than you would have if you go year to year, but in return, you get 2 FA years at roughly market value. On the face of it, there’s no savings, because you overpay in arbitration and pay market rate for those two FA years. But there’s little chance Bello would sign a 2y deal after hitting FA, unless he is bad or badly injured. So, assuming he hits his median outcome, we get his age 30 and 31 seasons at a reasonable rate *without* having to pay for his mid 30s decline years, and in return we pay slightly more for his arb years.
|
|
bg23
Rookie
Posts: 120
Member is Online
|
Post by bg23 on Mar 7, 2024 16:12:26 GMT -5
Interesting that they brought up Hunter Greene as a comp and then went over his deal. I think everyone would rather have Greene in the real world.. Bello is at 214 IP at one year of service, which is a high number. I think IP matters a lot in arb. I think they structured the deal trying to pay him a fair/typical amount for six years and then making the fair trade of guaranteeing those earnings in exchange for a club option year. I just think they shot a little high with these salary estimates, but whatever Well, Greene was last year; the deals are basically the same. I'm also not sure I'd rather have Greene, as they've had pretty similar production thus far. Greene has the loud fastball, but Bello has the GB% and tasty changeup. If we ignore draft hype, which we should, I would have a hard time choosing, and that's also what their contracts say. and even with the triple digit heat, the fastball has been a bad pitch for Greene as the metrics are quite poor. It’s his slider that has been at the core of his success. He has the pedigree and upside, but the fastball metrics and injury concerns have me leaning towards Bello. Greene’s contract always struck me as just about the perfect benchmark though.
|
|
|
Post by briam on Mar 7, 2024 16:40:34 GMT -5
This guy was saying yesterday that it would be a "good piece of business" for the Red Sox to have this contract kick in next year; now it's a good piece of business to have it kick in this year. The point is: no matter what the Red Sox do, they're doing it to save John Henry money.
Meanwhile, what the team has actually done this offseason is allocate $31 million to this year's luxury tax payroll solely for the sake of future value ($17 million for Sale, $5 million for Hendriks, $9 million for Bello). I'd love it if they topped it off by eating Jansen's salary in a trade for prospects.
Honest question, does it matter what the LT payroll is if it’s under the threshold to ownership? If JH is only cutting a check of 1 million to Bello and 2 million to Hendriks, will he really care that the AAV for LT purposes is 9 and 5? I imagine they operate a budget based on the actual cash dispersed, not how luxury tax penalties are potentially calculated as long as they’re under. The active payroll including Sale and Turner’s buyout is only about $179 million. Doesn’t seem all that high.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Mar 7, 2024 16:42:37 GMT -5
I don't care if this saved Henry money. Extending Bello at a good deal was the right thing to do. Well done.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Mar 7, 2024 18:01:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by geostorm on Mar 7, 2024 18:02:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by geostorm on Mar 7, 2024 18:03:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Mar 7, 2024 18:07:53 GMT -5
$1M signing bonus
SALARIES
2024: $1M 2025: $2.5M 2026: $6M 2027: $8.5M 2028: $16M 2029: $19M
2030 team option: $21M ($1M buyout)
|
|
|
Post by wOBA Fett on Mar 7, 2024 20:02:40 GMT -5
Also theft if Bello can't stay healthy and only develops into a #4/5 starter. Lot of risk with these deals, but this is the only way to play the game now.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 7, 2024 20:40:54 GMT -5
I wouldn't be upset with any or all of Casas, Wong, Duran, Crawford, Houck or Winckowski.
Atlanta2.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 7, 2024 20:44:49 GMT -5
Good analysis for those who've forgotten or didn't know it. Once he got his sea legs he was outstanding into August. Gassed for the last part of it, he faded and so did his numbers. There's a reason to believe that he can get and stay stronger and have that success carry through the season.
|
|
|
Post by sxfan on Mar 7, 2024 21:34:37 GMT -5
I think we'll look back and look at this contract and compare it to the first Jon Lester contract. Just pure value and no negative affects to it at all. He could be injured for 2 whole years and be worth this contract.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Mar 7, 2024 21:42:01 GMT -5
Also theft if Bello can't stay healthy and only develops into a #4/5 starter. Lot of risk with these deals, but this is the only way to play the game now. Eh. Even a 4 might be fair market by then. Bello is exactly the pitcher you gamble on and I think the odds are in the Red Sox favor that he outperforms his contract.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,802
|
Post by mobaz on Mar 7, 2024 21:51:45 GMT -5
Can we change the question mark to an exclamation point now pls?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 7, 2024 23:18:28 GMT -5
Or on the flipside since Twitterverse is a cesspool they'll undoubtedly be people who complain the Sox didn't pay him enough and blame the org somehow. WEEI was already saying Bello is pissed and they low-balled him. Maybe it's time to revisit some of this, to determine what the goal was here. I'm trying to figure out if the comment lacked a clear understanding of how negotiations proceed or if that was irrelevant. Is it like this all the time on the broadcasts? I'll admit I don't listen to WEEI out here in the West.
|
|
|