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.
2014-15 offseason discussion
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 21, 2014 18:44:17 GMT -5
A couple of questions about how the value of player contracts are calculated for purposes of the cap: - If a player is given a cash bonus to sign, over and above his annual salary, is the total of the bonus included in the first year, or is it spread out over the life of the contract? - If a certain amount of a player's salary is deferred, to be paid over a period of time after he retires, how is that calculated for purposes of the cap? Or is it even legal to do? - It is spread out over the term of the contract (as is a buyout at the end of the contract). - They calculate the present value of the deferred payments and spread it over the term of the contract (I don't know what discount rate they use). Thanks. I think there was a contract with a big name player some years ago that had deferred payments after retirement, but I cannot recall the player. I am almost certain it was before the salary cap. It would be an interesting way of doing a big deal and staying under the cap. I should add that once upon a time there were tax advantages to the player in having deferred compensation. Since the progressive nature of the income tax was pretty much eliminated I am not sure there is any advantage today.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 4,139
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 21, 2014 18:48:27 GMT -5
Manny had a lot of deferred money and there is a hilarious video of Duquette explaining it to him. But I think deferred money would have to count for the years in which you are still playing.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Aug 21, 2014 19:09:55 GMT -5
Manny had a lot of deferred money and there is a hilarious video of Duquette explaining it to him. But I think deferred money would have to count for the years in which you are still playing. Might have been outlawed after but Bobby Bonilla says that isn't necessarily the case.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 21, 2014 21:53:29 GMT -5
Bingo! Bonilla was the player I was thinking of.
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Aug 22, 2014 6:50:04 GMT -5
- They calculate the present value of the deferred payments and spread it over the term of the contract (I don't know what discount rate they use). Wait, so is it that salary over the life of the contract is not discounted, but payments after the term of the contract are discounted? If that's how it works, couldn't a team convince a player to take most of his salary from the final year of a deal in the following year, which would cause that payment to be discounted in calculating AAV? That could be pretty significant on longer deals if that's how it works. I'm sure I'm missing some nuance, though. It gets complicated, but basically that would screw the player out of tax planning ability, efforts to obviously game the system are basically arbitratable (and the commish wouldn't agree to it as contracts must be approved by the commish's office), and they've laid out relatively complex rules on how to deal with most work-arounds. See pages 111-112 of the CBA (art XXIII.E.6) for the details.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Aug 22, 2014 7:23:19 GMT -5
If we sign Castillo, pretty much makes Craig trade-bait doesn't it? Too bad him and Victorino are hurt. Hard to see another team taking a chance on either of them at this point. Maybe, mid-season. BC's got his work cut out for him. Some targets are injured too; Cargo and Tulo. Only LH bat I can see being moved is Pedro Alvarez. He's been an absolute butcher at 3b and the Pirates are in the process of moving him to 1b. Maybe, they'd be interested in Craig. But, we'd be stuck with Alvarez at 3b until Napoli leaves.
This year has been an un-mitigated disaster. Looks like next year will be the bridge year. We've got to find out what some of our younger players can/can't do before we deal them. A la; Reddick, Lowrie, Murphy, Moss etc. Don't want to trade low.
|
|
|
Post by zil on Aug 22, 2014 7:36:11 GMT -5
I think a Castillo signing spells doom for Mookie and that really annoys me. Fenway's got such a big right field that you could make an argument for putting Castillo there, but Cespedes-Betts-Castillo doesn't seem very likely.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Aug 22, 2014 9:55:14 GMT -5
I think a Castillo signing spells doom for Mookie and that really annoys me. Fenway's got such a big right field that you could make an argument for putting Castillo there, but Cespedes-Betts-Castillo doesn't seem very likely. I believe the front office understands now just how this year compares to past years and green young players. If they get Castillo then the outfield barring trading Victorino would look something like this: Craig - Castillo -Cespedes with Victorino and Nava as the backups. They have the money for that and a lot is already sunken costs anyway. You will have Jackie and Mookie in AAA until someone gets hurt and then the better option at the time will be coming up and going down like Ellsbury did way back when they needed a quality player to mix it up in 07. That formula sure seems to me will be the most likely for next year. With Cespedes maybe gone at years end 16 will take care of itself.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Aug 22, 2014 10:03:14 GMT -5
I think a Castillo signing spells doom for Mookie and that really annoys me. Fenway's got such a big right field that you could make an argument for putting Castillo there, but Cespedes-Betts-Castillo doesn't seem very likely. I don't think its a given and I think Betts is our future at leadoff. Don't know if he plays CF/RF or maybe 3B but I think he hits atop the order. I think it more than likely effects JBJ. I don't think we sell low but maybe he starts in AAA and builds trade value for next years deadline. Also Cespedas is only signed one more year and we also potentially have an opening at 3B and Napoli only for a year and Craig has injury concerns. I think Betts finds a home somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by jpost11 on Aug 22, 2014 10:39:23 GMT -5
Lots of righties next year in the lineup. Only projected lefty at this point is Ortiz (possibly holt). I am getting the feeling this off season is going to be one to remember.
|
|
|
Post by semperfisox on Aug 22, 2014 11:12:00 GMT -5
I really want to keep Betts in CF in 2015. JBJ has had his chance to show something with the bat and hasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan Singer on Aug 22, 2014 11:15:23 GMT -5
I really want to keep Betts in CF in 2015. JBJ has had his chance to show something with the bat and hasn't. I blame the front office for JBJ's struggles starting when they promoted him straight from Double A in 2013. A great spring training shouldn't have forced the front office to promote him when he was not ready.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 22, 2014 11:22:25 GMT -5
I don't think its a given and I think Betts is our future at leadoff. Don't know if he plays CF/RF or maybe 3B but I think he hits atop the order. I think it more than likely effects JBJ. I don't think we sell low but maybe he starts in AAA and builds trade value for next years deadline. Also Cespedas is only signed one more year and we also potentially have an opening at 3B and Napoli only for a year and Craig has injury concerns. I think Betts finds a home somewhere. They just signed a 70 speed CF for $72.5mm. Betts will find a home somewhere, probably PHI.
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Aug 22, 2014 11:25:04 GMT -5
Which left-handed outfielders will the Sox get?
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 22, 2014 12:27:19 GMT -5
I think the sox can unload some of the plethora of pitching for either another big bat or a solid pitching ace type starter for 2015.
But I think we should make a huge run at the Yankee closer. The guy is lights out and if the yanks go hard after Lester and sherzer, they might over look their closer.
I think there is an older middle reliever in San Diego that is a free agent and might be a nice player to bring in in a two year deal.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Aug 22, 2014 12:46:49 GMT -5
I don't think its a given and I think Betts is our future at leadoff. Don't know if he plays CF/RF or maybe 3B but I think he hits atop the order. I think it more than likely effects JBJ. I don't think we sell low but maybe he starts in AAA and builds trade value for next years deadline. Also Cespedas is only signed one more year and we also potentially have an opening at 3B and Napoli only for a year and Craig has injury concerns. I think Betts finds a home somewhere. They just signed a 70 speed CF for $72.5mm. Betts will find a home somewhere, probably PHI. so we just signed someone for 30 million more than Puig. I realize there is the market and inflation..but color me unimpressed. The guy hasn't played a lick of MLB. I'm filing it under overreaction by the FO.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 22, 2014 12:57:55 GMT -5
They just signed a 70 speed CF for $72.5mm. Betts will find a home somewhere, probably PHI. so we just signed someone for 30 million more than Puig. I realize there is the market and inflation..but color me unimpressed. The guy hasn't played a lick of MLB. I'm filing it under overreaction by the FO. You can't really make this comparison though. Puig wouldn't sign now for what he signed for coming out of Cuba. That's like buying low on a stock, then having the stock go up, then saying that buying the stock at the higher market price is a bad deal even though it may still go up, simply because at one point in the past it was valued lower. Was Abreu's contract awful because he signed for 6/68? Note that Castillo signed for $10.29 AAV, $1M per year LESS than Abreu ($11.33M AAV). This is literally one of the only areas where a club can flex its financial muscle under the current CBA, and he potentially fills a number of holes in the lineup (leadoff, center field). I'm cool with it.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Aug 22, 2014 13:06:11 GMT -5
so we just signed someone for 30 million more than Puig. I realize there is the market and inflation..but color me unimpressed. The guy hasn't played a lick of MLB. I'm filing it under overreaction by the FO. You can't really make this comparison though. Puig wouldn't sign now for what he signed for coming out of Cuba. That's like buying low on a stock, then having the stock go up, then telling someone he's stupid for buying the stock at the higher price even though it may still go up. Was Abreu's contract awful because he signed for 6/68? That's why I put the caveat of the "market and inflation" in my first post, a certain amount is fair, but almost 2x the value. This is Puig's 2nd year. Abreau's also been great. Are you going to say that this guy will also be great, because the other 2 have and we should pay a figure based on that? Your smarter than that.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Aug 22, 2014 13:14:25 GMT -5
I think the last thing the team would want to do is block both Jackie Bradley and Mookie Betts from the only and most likely / valuable (respectively) position they might play for us in the future. I also think that Cespedes in RF has always been an iffy proposition. And he may not be here after 2015, a possibility that this signing makes likelier. It's also possible that they think both Betts and Bradley could use another year in AAA, although that's kind of a radical thought. So ... what are the possibilities? 1) They think Castillo is a good fit long-term in RF despite the so-so arm. 1a) 2015: Cespedes, Betts or Bradley, Castillo. Bench consists of two of Nava, Victorino, and Craig, but probably the first two. 2016 and on: Cespedes? Betts? Craig? Stanton? God?, Betts or Bradley, Castillo. 1b) 2015: Cespedes, Castillo, Victorino. Bench consists of Nava and Craig, who play LF with Cespedes in RF when Victorino is out. 2016 and on: same as 1a. 2) They want Castillo to replace Cespedes in LF after this year. 2015: as either of the above. 2016 and on: Castillo, Betts or Bradley, Betts? Heyward? ?? 3) They think Castillo can play 3B. That would actually rock big-time, if he could. None of those make sense to me. Castillo is a CF for now, especially given they don't have one right now. In 2016 Victorino and Cespedes are gone, and Nava is one year older, so you can easily see why the Sox would want to keep at least three of Bradley, Craig, Castillo and Betts. They can get everyone playing time simply by stashing 2 of Betts, Castillo and Bradley (likely the B's) in AAA next year, and using Nava and Victorino as backups for injuries, days off, performance insurance, or a platoon advantage in the case of Nava. This also makes Holt a backup/platoon, 3B or AAA player, which I've got nor problem with.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Aug 22, 2014 13:59:36 GMT -5
What I really like about this deal is that Castillo will play some this year before the Sox have to make decisions about the other players. While he may not be in the greatest shape, he will give everyone a real idea of what to expect in the future.
The Cuban players in general have a pretty good track record. Those who have been said ahead of time to be really good generally have been. This is a deal that definitely is worth trying.
I remain dubious whether Victorino will be a factor next season. There is a lot of time for him to recover, but it takes time. He also has had other issues that could arise again. The Sox probably can't trade him until he shows he can play, but I suspect that won't occur until sometime in the season next year.
Nava could be a pretty decent regular for quite a few teams, especially right now with the dearth of good outfielders. So he might be a decent one for one trade chip, maybe for a good RP. However, barring that, he also is a really good 4th OF and backup 1B for the Sox.
Unless the Sox give Betts a shot at 3B, I think there is a good chance he goes in a big trade (and then wins ROY, if he still is eligible). I can't see them keeping both Betts and JBJ at Pawtucket next year.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 22, 2014 19:25:27 GMT -5
If the sox hang into pedroia, then they have to trade mookie.
Interestingly, the marlins could use a second baseman.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Aug 22, 2014 20:06:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Aug 23, 2014 0:26:15 GMT -5
Are we really on the prowl for starting pitching this offseason or do we try to sign the Yankees closer and get another bat.
With Lester and sherzer having the big boys all vying for their attention, can we swoop in and sign a shields type starter?
Do we have the players necessary to pry darvish out of Texas?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,018
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 23, 2014 2:53:22 GMT -5
Are we really on the prowl for starting pitching this offseason or do we try to sign the Yankees closer and get another bat. With Lester and sherzer having the big boys all vying for their attention, can we swoop in and sign a shields type starter? Do we have the players necessary to pry darvish out of Texas? We have the players necessary to pry Jesus out of heaven. There isn't a player in baseball not named Mike Trout that you couldn't get if you offered Betts, Swihart, Cespedes, Middlebrooks, Marrero, Coyle, Webster, Ranaudo, Johnson, and Eduardo Rodriguez. (Which would still leave Wright, Owens, and Barnes to round out the rotation, and a pretty good team of Vazquez, Napoli, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Holt, Craig, Bradley, Castillo, and Ortiz. Plus Jesus. And Margot.) In fact, you could probably get two very desirable players (excluding only guys in the next tier of superstardom) with that boatload. The question on any such back-the-truck-up-and-overwhelm the opposing-GM trade, a/k/a "Godfather trade" (making them an offer they can't refuse) is whether it's a good idea.You can argue that Cherington has already pursued mini versions of this strategy, because so many of his small trades have been overpays on paper. When we traded four years of control over a good starting SS for three years of control over a good set-up reliever, why were we the one throwing in the prospect? We traded five years of control over a decent starting RF with upside, for two years of a good closer, and both teams knew that the latter were hugely overvalued, so why were we the club throwing in three prospects, two of them quite good? And when we traded the remaining two years of control over the aforementioned good set-up man for just one of a closer (who was not, of course, twice as good), why, again, were we the club adding a three-for-one trade of prospects? Oh, and we traded six years of control over an OK starting SS with upside, for 1 1/3 years of an overpaid 4th starter ... and threw in three prospects, two of them quite good. I actually think that when you have so much talent in the organization, pursuing such trades is a viable strategy. The key is to target the right people to fill real and not imagined needs, which Cherington has pretty clearly not done so far. I think there's just one guy worth backing up the truck for, and that's Heyward, in large part because the price would actually be less relative to value than for Stanton, etc.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 23, 2014 6:09:34 GMT -5
Generally agree very much, Eric ... except on your characterization of the Brock Holt trade.
|
|
|