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 re-sign Koji Uehara for two years, $18m
|
Post by jmei on Nov 1, 2014 14:05:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 1, 2014 16:52:16 GMT -5
That article is too cryptic to really glean any information about how they may spend in the future. They've never gone full Yankee...so while it may not be a hard cap...their past would lead a reasonable person to believe they'll be right around that figure and not much more.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 1, 2014 17:01:42 GMT -5
A solid article jmei, which I had not seen. And I agree with your assessment but do not think it tips us into going over the limit this year still. Revenue sharing is still over $10 mil per team at the very least I would think. And probably much higher when I look at the natuional TV deals in place and the teams like LA and NYC blowing right by the limit.
I think the Sox will stay under the limit until, as a big market team, they are no longer eligible. Imagine what the revenue sharing will be for the 15 teams who are left in that pool when the top 15 market teams or so are no longer eligible. And National TV revenues keep growing.
MLB will become increasingly egalitarian. Small market team owners should all thank Commisioner Selig for literally putting them in a situation where they can't help but make millions of dollars per year in profits going forward. A team can even go into semi Loria mode and have almost no fans and still make money. And after 2016 isn't it, that will be more true than ever.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 1, 2014 17:43:29 GMT -5
That article is too cryptic to really glean any information about how they may spend in the future. They've never gone full Yankee...so while it may not be a hard cap...their past would lead a reasonable person to believe they'll be right around that figure and not much more. Oh, I don't know. The quarter of a billion in salary they dumped on the Dodgers wasn't chump change. What I got from the article was exactly what we've been throwing around. The FO doesn't feel all that constrained by the cap if there is value out there. Now that there's some data behind the CBA, Henry says that he had his ticket punched on the outcomes he projected. No knowing exactly what he's referring to there, but he's clear that they won't see those charges as a major barrier going forward. The bigger issue is the other point he makes. There are fewer ways to blow through your money, and handing it out in the form of fat contracts that will look like crap after a few years isn't optimal. What that means to me is what we saw them do in prep for 2013: overpay for value that they want on the team. I'd guess that may mean giving a guy like Headley more money for a shorter contract, say 3 years. Anybody want to venture some figures? How about 3 years at $45 million? Let's see how that plays out, and what they can do with the cards their holding in the minor league system. It's time to move some of that pitching talent, at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 1, 2014 18:00:33 GMT -5
Possibly Henry thought more teams would go over the limit, rather than just the Yanks and Dodgers. It's real hard to read this article though and not think national TV revenues have skyrocketed. About 100% according to this article, starting in 2014: m.mlb.com/news/article/39362362/Even if National TV rights were only $1 billion a year, ( the article says $12.4 billion over 8 years so $1 billion in 2014 should be a conservative estimate right, and there are other national revenue streams like mlb.com, tshirt and jersey sales etc...which are part of revenue sharing ) $1 billion divided by 30 is a boatload of money. I know the league office gets a bunch of that but the teams definitely get the lion's share. It's got to be at least $25-30 mil per team to me. It sounds like some thought the revenue sharing would be higher ( not Henry ) but it's not chump change even in 2014.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 1, 2014 21:14:24 GMT -5
Here is the best breakdown I've seen: www.captainsblog.info/2013/01/23/flaw-in-the-yankees-budget-plan-breaking-down-mlbs-revenue-sharing-system/18956/It's extremely complicated, but the gist is that even under conservative assumptions, the Red Sox would only lose out on $4.3m of revenue sharing refund in 2015 if they went over the luxury tax, and it's possible (if enough big-market teams are profitable enough) that they would lose out on nothing at all. Essentially, the whole revenue refund issue turned out to be mostly a red herring, which is what Henry alludes to above. They still might stick to a $189m budget, either because the luxury tax itself is a significant enough deterrent or because that's just how much ownership wants to spend on player salaries. But I think it's unfair to suggest that that number is a true hard cap, and I think it's certainly possible that the right potential acquisition is alluring enough to entice ownership to go over the tax line. Maybe not likely, but certainly possible.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 1, 2014 23:31:40 GMT -5
I just spent time reading about 50 pages from the current CBA. It seems intentionally a shell game to me. Intentionally a way to hide how much money is actually going to each team owner. It's like motion picture film companies. The director signs a deal for a cut out of the take after costs but the distribution of the film supposedly costs 500 million and he gets nothing. The owners don't want anyone to know how much money they are pocketing. It's not in their interest to talk about it. They are making a fortune. Look at the NBA team valuations going through the roof. It's pay TV and the advent of HD sports programming. The entertainment value of sports has exploded. The teams are contributing sizeable amounts into the pool even from their local stadium revenue, as in hundreds of millions of dollars overall. And they also have their local TV deals which are often their largest single revenue stream ( Edit - and enough to often pay for all their player salaries by itself ). Forget about their DVD deals from MLB properties and their apparel sales, which are sizable amounts going into the national pool. Forget about mlb.com which obviously is a significant revenue stream. Just look at these two revenue streams below which go into the collective league pool, and ask yourself who gets all that money. A large part of it has to be going to the owners. A lot goes to pay player benefits and the league office personnel but look at these cash cows: *** About $1.5 BILLION per year over the next 8 years just from national TV revenue. Divided by 30 teams that is $50 million per year even if every team was reimbursed equally. Some teams get nothing right, so some teams should be getting more than that. Again, the league has costs and player benefits are substantial but that is a whole lot of cash which is getting sent to someone. At least $30 mil per team I would think, for the poorer teams. *** An often underestimated revenue stream is mlb.tv which had 2 million subscribers all the way back in 2011 ( see mashable.com/2011/08/26/mlb-digital-media/ ). Imagine what it is now. No one seems to be talking about it do they. It's got to be at least 5 million paid subscribers now at $120 each or $600 million. It's just like pay cable. Properties like HBO and Netflix have a tremendous business model. Very low distribution costs and incredible revenue streams. The league office has roughly $2 - 2.5 billion in annual revenues each year coming in already, and that is a lot more than the collective benefits cost of all the players and the cost of the league office personnel. It may be that if a team stays under the luxury tax limit it gets only $5 mil but that seems extremely difficult to comprehend. If so, the luxury tax limit is near worthless as a disincentive. And I don't see how the teams could have thought it wouldn't be going into this year.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Nov 1, 2014 23:36:13 GMT -5
If the league distributed $2 billion from that up to $2.5 billion that is $66 million per team. Edit: There is something like $150 million per year set aside currently for "league expansion". If a franchise gets in trouble like Texas did a while ago they can loan the team money...etc. Consider also how much it probably would cost to buy a franchise now. I bet it's in the $500 mil range even to buy into the league at all now, and that goes right into the league office I would think.
To a large degree, each team is effectively sheltering money at the league office, in the same way a company like google shelters a lot of it's income in Ireland. Just being a mlb franchise now means a share of that pot long term. The value of each mlb franchise is going up as a result.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 1, 2014 23:39:37 GMT -5
Could this really negatively impact the Sox? Sure, I guess. But they really have little to no wasted spot on their tax breakdown right now. Maybe Victorino for 2015, barely Craig if he's awful. If the contract goes bad, it likely happens in the 2nd year, one in which the Sox have pretty much nothing guaranteed. Taking a small bit of risk in 2015 by maybe having a few less $ to spend, but it unlikely impacts the next years budget all that well, and that assumes he's not still a top flight closer. If he is, then it's a relatively mute point
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Nov 2, 2014 9:14:53 GMT -5
I think the mistake we as fans make is focusing too much on a single year's cap figure, whereas I think the Sox ownership/management would have to think in terms of total commitment and future expectations for the cap. So the obligations for 2016 are as important as the obligations for 2015 in their offseason planning. This is why I think there's a reasonable chance of the Sox going over for 2015 ... there's quite a bit of money coming off the books after 2015, and Victorino's money, in particular, is pretty much free money in the sense that it doesn't have to get replaced. And going over for one year isn't that meaningful if they can reset the clock on their penalties after that one year.
So, the Sox have $29 million coming off after 2015 in Victorino and Napoli alone. Just for the sake of argument (not that I actually believe this), say the Sox think that Sandoval will hit enough to make Napoli expendable after next year. That means going over the cap to sign him this year is not that meaningful to the team. Or going over to sign a pitcher isn't that big a deal if Victorino's salary gives them plenty of room to get under the cap the following year.
Looking further out, the team doesn't really have any expiring contracts to worry about in the next 3-4 years (only two Buchholz option years to consider, which I assume for AAV purposes get treated as one-year deals adding ~$6million to his cap figure each year). And with all the money flowing into the league, the cap's going to go up ...
The point is, the team has quite a bit to spend in 2015, but much more than that going forward, so if the Sox think there's a way to get a real talent and lock him up for years, they can do it, still fill in the team with some solid 3-4 year contracts, and if they go over the cap in 2015 ... well, I think they'd be stupid not to do it, and I don't think they're stupid.
Of course, if there isn't that guy, they aren't going to spend the money just to spend it.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 2, 2014 11:37:20 GMT -5
I think the mistake we as fans make is focusing too much on a single year's cap figure, whereas I think the Sox ownership/management would have to think in terms of total commitment and future expectations for the cap. So the obligations for 2016 are as important as the obligations for 2015 in their offseason planning. This is why I think there's a reasonable chance of the Sox going over for 2015 ... there's quite a bit of money coming off the books after 2015, and Victorino's money, in particular, is pretty much free money in the sense that it doesn't have to get replaced. And going over for one year isn't that meaningful if they can reset the clock on their penalties after that one year. So, the Sox have $29 million coming off after 2015 in Victorino and Napoli alone. Just for the sake of argument (not that I actually believe this), say the Sox think that Sandoval will hit enough to make Napoli expendable after next year. That means going over the cap to sign him this year is not that meaningful to the team. Or going over to sign a pitcher isn't that big a deal if Victorino's salary gives them plenty of room to get under the cap the following year. Looking further out, the team doesn't really have any expiring contracts to worry about in the next 3-4 years (only two Buchholz option years to consider, which I assume for AAV purposes get treated as one-year deals adding ~$6million to his cap figure each year). And with all the money flowing into the league, the cap's going to go up ... The point is, the team has quite a bit to spend in 2015, but much more than that going forward, so if the Sox think there's a way to get a real talent and lock him up for years, they can do it, still fill in the team with some solid 3-4 year contracts, and if they go over the cap in 2015 ... well, I think they'd be stupid not to do it, and I don't think they're stupid. Of course, if there isn't that guy, they aren't going to spend the money just to spend it. I agree that they should spend extra if they can get the 'right' player - but the problem with the 'the have X amount of dollars coming off the books in year X' is that it's never as much as it appears at first glance. According to Cots the have 72 mil coming off the books for 2016, but of that 72 mil you have: 1. 10 - 16 mil on the David Ortiz option (if he retires, a replacement bat of his level would cost more) - let's say 14 mil (for 525 PA in 2015) 2. 13 mil for Buchholz assuming they pickup his option which is likely unless he implodes (otherwise they need another SP at likely a similar rate) 3. A middle of the order bat who needs to be replaced in Mike Napoli - let's say they resign him or another player for 18 mil. 4. They have to replace either/both Cespedes or Victorino - let's say 16 mil. 5. Need to replace setup man Mujica - let's say 6 mil. (setup men are getting pricey it seems) 6. Need to cover arbitration increases of Tazawa (3yr), Nava (2yr), Middlebrooks (1yr), Kelly (1yr), RDLR (2yr) - Let's say .....10 mil in arbitration increases (assumes Middlebrooks is non-tendered or traded) With all of those numbers, you get...$77 mil - which takes up the entire amount coming off the books and then some. So it's possible that a Brentz/Nava platoon or JBJ work as the 3rd OF, That Ortiz gets hurt and saves 4 mil, that both Buchholz implodes AND one of the young guys steps up as a 2/3 pitcher and that one of the young SP becomes a solid setup man - but from where I stand, none of those things seem likely enough to make long-term decisions based off of (aside from maybe the setup man). I still agree that the 'right player(s)' (currently leaning toward Lester + Headley myself) should be gone after, but unfortunately the money coming off the books has to be used to fill future real holes as well. No room to mortgage the future unless the budget increases. www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tz8qHiYrIzlFtVnly7gibjw&output=html
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Nov 2, 2014 11:58:17 GMT -5
I agree that they should spend extra if they can get the 'right' player - but the problem with the 'the have X amount of dollars coming off the books in year X' is that it's never as much as it appears at first glance. According to Cots the have 72 mil coming off the books for 2016, but of that 72 mil you have: 1. 10 - 16 mil on the David Ortiz option (if he retires, a replacement bat of his level would cost more) - let's say 14 mil (for 525 PA in 2015) 2. 13 mil for Buchholz assuming they pickup his option which is likely unless he implodes (otherwise they need another SP at likely a similar rate) 3. A middle of the order bat who needs to be replaced in Mike Napoli - let's say they resign him or another player for 18 mil. 4. They have to replace either/both Cespedes or Victorino - let's say 16 mil. 5. Need to replace setup man Mujica - let's say 6 mil. (setup men are getting pricey it seems) 6. Need to cover arbitration increases of Tazawa (3yr), Nava (2yr), Middlebrooks (1yr), Kelly (1yr), RDLR (2yr) - Let's say .....10 mil in arbitration increases (assumes Middlebrooks is non-tendered or traded) With all of those numbers, you get...$77 mil - which takes up the entire amount coming off the books and then some. So it's possible that a Brentz/Nava platoon or JBJ work as the 3rd OF, That Ortiz gets hurt and saves 4 mil, that both Buchholz implodes AND one of the young guys steps up as a 2/3 pitcher and that one of the young SP becomes a solid setup man - but from where I stand, none of those things seem likely enough to make long-term decisions based off of (aside from maybe the setup man). I still agree that the 'right player(s)' (currently leaning toward Lester + Headley myself) should be gone after, but unfortunately the money coming off the books has to be used to fill future real holes as well. No room to mortgage the future unless the budget increases. www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tz8qHiYrIzlFtVnly7gibjw&output=htmlYou're kinda double counting, though ... you're including $18 million for a "middle of the order bat," and then another $16 million to replace Victorino and/or Cespedes. That's a lot of money! That's exactly the type of money I'm talking about being available to buy things like a middle of the order bat or a top-flight outfielder, which are, not coincidentaly, the same things you just earmarked that money for. So, essentially, we're saying the same thing. It's not set in stone, but if the young core of Betts, Bogaerts, and Swihart/Vazquez develop, plus a couple of Owens, Rodriquez, Johnson, Barnes, etc, on the pitching side, this team is set for quite a long run of success at reasonable payroll dollars for their core. So the team can afford to spend a little right now to be competitive next year. They're still light on mid-career guys ...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 3, 2014 8:46:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 5, 2014 12:43:04 GMT -5
So I thought it was fair to look up what might have been a realistic alternative to signing Uehara. The best alternative I came up with was Luke Gregerson, who is estimated to cost 3/20. Yes it's more years but a lower AAV and he is several years younger.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 5, 2014 13:08:50 GMT -5
So I thought it was fair to look up what might have been a realistic alternative to signing Uehara. The best alternative I came up with was Luke Gregerson, who is estimated to cost 3/20. Yes it's more years but a lower AAV and he is several years younger. Personally, I'd rather go with Koji. Are you saying you'd have preferred Gregerson (honest question)?
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 5, 2014 15:27:55 GMT -5
So I thought it was fair to look up what might have been a realistic alternative to signing Uehara. The best alternative I came up with was Luke Gregerson, who is estimated to cost 3/20. Yes it's more years but a lower AAV and he is several years younger. Personally, I'd rather go with Koji. Are you saying you'd have preferred Gregerson (honest question)? If the salary for Gregerson was 3/20, yes I would have preferred Gregerson because it's a lower AAV and he's 9 years younger. Of course it's fair to argue that there is no guarantee that Gregerson would sign for 3/20 and had they waited, Uehara likely would not have been available for 2/18.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 5, 2014 15:51:57 GMT -5
Personally, I'd rather go with Koji. Are you saying you'd have preferred Gregerson (honest question)? If the salary for Gregerson was 3/20, yes I would have preferred Gregerson because it's a lower AAV and he's 9 years younger. Of course it's fair to argue that there is no guarantee that Gregerson would sign for 3/20 and had they waited, Uehara likely would not have been available for 2/18. How about we just go with Alex Wilson for $500k instead?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 5, 2014 16:27:54 GMT -5
Personally, I'd rather go with Koji. Are you saying you'd have preferred Gregerson (honest question)? If the salary for Gregerson was 3/20, yes I would have preferred Gregerson because it's a lower AAV and he's 9 years younger. Of course it's fair to argue that there is no guarantee that Gregerson would sign for 3/20 and had they waited, Uehara likely would not have been available for 2/18. My main reason for preferring Uehara is that he's projected to be almost a run better than Gregorson by Steamer, and other projection systems would likely come out similarly. Sure, given his age, there's some injury risk with Koji, but when healthy, he's been one of the five best relievers in baseball-- I'm willing to pay a little extra for that level of dominance.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Nov 5, 2014 18:13:38 GMT -5
If the salary for Gregerson was 3/20, yes I would have preferred Gregerson because it's a lower AAV and he's 9 years younger. Of course it's fair to argue that there is no guarantee that Gregerson would sign for 3/20 and had they waited, Uehara likely would not have been available for 2/18. My main reason for preferring Uehara is that he's projected to be almost a run better than Gregorson by Steamer, and other projection systems would likely come out similarly. Sure, given his age, there's some injury risk with Koji, but when healthy, he's been one of the five best relievers in baseball-- I'm willing to pay a little extra for that level of dominance. 1 run would't be worth the 3m difference......especially with the higher risk.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 6, 2014 8:17:23 GMT -5
A run as in a run per nine innings better. A 2-something ERA is a huge upgrade over a 3-something ERA in the late innings.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Nov 6, 2014 9:23:35 GMT -5
A run as in a run per nine innings better. A 2-something ERA is a huge upgrade over a 3-something ERA in the late innings. A run of ERA is 8 runs in 72 innings. The effect of 8 runs in a closer situation depends on the circumstances in which the closer enters and the clustering of the runs allowed. If a closer is consistently protecting one-run leads and gives us runs here and there, 8 runs could easily affect the outcome of, say, half a dozen games. On the other hand, if the runs score when a closer comes in with a 3 run lead and gives up 5 or 6 in the top of the ninth (which happened with Koji this past season, which is when his ERA was "ballooning"), a run of ERA might as easily affect just the outcome of that one game. There are lots of circumstances where closers have amassed lots of saves despite a less-than-gaudy-looking ERA from giving up scattered runs by coming in to close games with a multi-run lead. Now we can discuss the relative psychological impacts on the team of losing the extra tight games versus losing one game that seemed "comfortably in hand."
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 6, 2014 9:51:57 GMT -5
ERA means almost nothing to a relief pitcher. What matters way more is what percentage of games he gives up runs.
I don't think Gregerson is anywhere close to as dominant as Koji no matter how close their ERAs might be.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan1615 on Nov 6, 2014 9:58:54 GMT -5
ERA means almost nothing to a relief pitcher. What matters way more is what percentage of games he gives up runs. I don't think Gregerson is anywhere close to as dominant as Koji no matter how close their ERAs might be. agree with you on ERA for relievers, but a better stat is RE24, which Koji has a huge advantage over Gregerson in
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 6, 2014 11:38:59 GMT -5
Yeah, can we look at component numbers or something here rather than arguing about runs? Let's not forget the whole inherited runners issue with ERA either.
5-year averages Koji: 5.7 H/9, 1.1 HR/9, 1.1 BB/9, 11.5 K/9 Gregerson: 7.0 H/9, 0.7 HR/9, 2.4 BB/9, 8.3 K/9
So that's basically another baserunner every four innings.
I'm sure folks have better numbers they can cite. Gregerson is a great reliever I'd love to have on the team. I would definitely prefer Koji on his deal between the two, myself. I don't begrudge those who might be scared off of Koji due to his age though.
Of course, this is all conjecture until we know what Gregerson gets, right?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 6, 2014 13:20:51 GMT -5
I agree that they should spend extra if they can get the 'right' player - but the problem with the 'the have X amount of dollars coming off the books in year X' is that it's never as much as it appears at first glance. According to Cots the have 72 mil coming off the books for 2016, but of that 72 mil you have: 1. 10 - 16 mil on the David Ortiz option (if he retires, a replacement bat of his level would cost more) - let's say 14 mil (for 525 PA in 2015) 2. 13 mil for Buchholz assuming they pickup his option which is likely unless he implodes (otherwise they need another SP at likely a similar rate) 3. A middle of the order bat who needs to be replaced in Mike Napoli - let's say they resign him or another player for 18 mil. 4. They have to replace either/both Cespedes or Victorino - let's say 16 mil. 5. Need to replace setup man Mujica - let's say 6 mil. (setup men are getting pricey it seems) 6. Need to cover arbitration increases of Tazawa (3yr), Nava (2yr), Middlebrooks (1yr), Kelly (1yr), RDLR (2yr) - Let's say .....10 mil in arbitration increases (assumes Middlebrooks is non-tendered or traded) With all of those numbers, you get...$77 mil - which takes up the entire amount coming off the books and then some. So it's possible that a Brentz/Nava platoon or JBJ work as the 3rd OF, That Ortiz gets hurt and saves 4 mil, that both Buchholz implodes AND one of the young guys steps up as a 2/3 pitcher and that one of the young SP becomes a solid setup man - but from where I stand, none of those things seem likely enough to make long-term decisions based off of (aside from maybe the setup man). I still agree that the 'right player(s)' (currently leaning toward Lester + Headley myself) should be gone after, but unfortunately the money coming off the books has to be used to fill future real holes as well. No room to mortgage the future unless the budget increases. www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tz8qHiYrIzlFtVnly7gibjw&output=htmlYou're kinda double counting, though ... you're including $18 million for a "middle of the order bat," and then another $16 million to replace Victorino and/or Cespedes. That's a lot of money! That's exactly the type of money I'm talking about being available to buy things like a middle of the order bat or a top-flight outfielder, which are, not coincidentaly, the same things you just earmarked that money for. So, essentially, we're saying the same thing. It's not set in stone, but if the young core of Betts, Bogaerts, and Swihart/Vazquez develop, plus a couple of Owens, Rodriquez, Johnson, Barnes, etc, on the pitching side, this team is set for quite a long run of success at reasonable payroll dollars for their core. So the team can afford to spend a little right now to be competitive next year. They're still light on mid-career guys ... [ All this and the possibility that Craig shows a 80-90% return to form which reduces the need for a 1b, DH, occasionl LF.
|
|
|