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 soxfan1615 on Nov 25, 2014 18:31:16 GMT -5
Yeah, totally two different budgets there. We've been over this many times on this board. if we're blowing the luxury tax, which seems likely, there's one budget |
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 25, 2014 18:32:56 GMT -5
Small peanuts but we also just lost < 2m we (probably) were going to invest in the minors with the two recent fa signings. We'll also be the best team in the league the next 5 years straight, further reducing our bonus pool
|
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 25, 2014 18:33:19 GMT -5
Yeah, totally two different budgets there. We've been over this many times on this board. if we're blowing the luxury tax, which seems likely, there's one budget No, there isn't. The luxury tax (MLB payroll) is completely different than the international signings budget. Completely different. We've been over this probably every year for the last 8 years. |
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 25, 2014 18:35:30 GMT -5
And people need to stop acting like our owners can't afford to spend much more. We could spend $300 million a year and be fine. Not that we will, but the owners have plenty of cash and plenty of revenue to cover for signing players. Can you give me a down payment for a new car? Doesn't matter if it's a bad investment for you, you can probably afford it. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 26, 2014 0:11:44 GMT -5
if we're blowing the luxury tax, which seems likely, there's one budget No, there isn't. The luxury tax (MLB payroll) is completely different than the international signings budget. Completely different. We've been over this probably every year for the last 8 years. Moncada is going to cost $80m+. The most the Red Sox have ever spent in IFA is roughly $5m a year. Where do you think that extra $75m is going to come from? |
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 26, 2014 0:20:23 GMT -5
No, there isn't. The luxury tax (MLB payroll) is completely different than the international signings budget. Completely different. We've been over this probably every year for the last 8 years. Moncada is going to cost $80m+. The most the Red Sox have ever spent in IFA is roughly $5m a year. Where do you think that extra $75m is going to come from? I mean I still think they'll spend at or near the luxury tax regardless, so I guess I'd say the extra $75M from their "profits" or "bank account" as opposed to their MLB spending pool. It's an educated guess, but I would still expect them to spend towards the limit, much like they did when they posted $50M for Dice-k, since if I'm not mistaken, that didn't count towards the tax limit either |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 26, 2014 1:05:28 GMT -5
Moncada is going to cost $80m+. The most the Red Sox have ever spent in IFA is roughly $5m a year. Where do you think that extra $75m is going to come from? I mean I still think they'll spend at or near the luxury tax regardless, so I guess I'd say the extra $75M from their "profits" or "bank account" as opposed to their MLB spending pool. It's an educated guess, but I would still expect them to spend towards the limit, much like they did when they posted $50M for Dice-k, since if I'm not mistaken, that didn't count towards the tax limit either It doesn't count against the cap, but it comes from somewhere. It's a little naive to think that John Henry is willing to just spend significantly more money on the team out of his fierce desire to compete. If that was true, they'd have spent more in the IFA market in the last ten years (they've been more of a middle-of-the-road team in that realm historically, spending far less than teams like the Yankees and the Rangers) and spent more on payroll (if ownership didn't care about turning a profit, they could have regularly spent above the luxury tax in the last few years a la the Dodgers or Yankees). There are opportunity costs for every dollar spent on Monacada. |
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 26, 2014 1:21:08 GMT -5
I mean I still think they'll spend at or near the luxury tax regardless, so I guess I'd say the extra $75M from their "profits" or "bank account" as opposed to their MLB spending pool. It's an educated guess, but I would still expect them to spend towards the limit, much like they did when they posted $50M for Dice-k, since if I'm not mistaken, that didn't count towards the tax limit either It doesn't count against the cap, but it comes from somewhere. It's a little naive to think that John Henry is willing to just spend significantly more money on the team out of his fierce desire to compete. If that was true, they'd have spent more in the IFA market in the last ten years (they've been more of a middle-of-the-road team in that realm historically, spending far less than teams like the Yankees and the Rangers) and spent more on payroll (if ownership didn't care about turning a profit, they could have regularly spent above the luxury tax in the last few years a la the Dodgers or Yankees). There are opportunity costs for every dollar spent on Monacada. I don't necessarily disagree. But there haven't been more than a handful of guys that project as anywhere close to as valuable on the international market that have been part of the international pool with little impact on the luxury tax limit. It's a pretty unique situation. If you assume the $80M can be written off from their true finances over a 6-7 year period, it's really not that much for ownership. This signing would likely impact the future total spent on IFA, which could be a fairly mute point if/when the international draft is put into place. I think it would have far more impact over international spending over the next 5 years than impact on the MLB payroll |
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,607
|
Post by nomar on Nov 26, 2014 4:28:37 GMT -5
I still think there's a chance that he gets less than projected because of the penalty. Of course all it takes is for one team to overpay. NYY and LAD are the teams I fear most in that regard, but if they remain at the same level of rationality as everyone else, the bidding may be lower than originally thought. Pure speculation on my end because, like jmei alluded to, $80 is a big time investment even if it doesn't count towards the payroll. Solid pill for Henry to swallow.
|
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 26, 2014 7:16:41 GMT -5
I mean I still think they'll spend at or near the luxury tax regardless, so I guess I'd say the extra $75M from their "profits" or "bank account" as opposed to their MLB spending pool. It's an educated guess, but I would still expect them to spend towards the limit, much like they did when they posted $50M for Dice-k, since if I'm not mistaken, that didn't count towards the tax limit either It doesn't count against the cap, but it comes from somewhere. It's a little naive to think that John Henry is willing to just spend significantly more money on the team out of his fierce desire to compete. If that was true, they'd have spent more in the IFA market in the last ten years (they've been more of a middle-of-the-road team in that realm historically, spending far less than teams like the Yankees and the Rangers) and spent more on payroll (if ownership didn't care about turning a profit, they could have regularly spent above the luxury tax in the last few years a la the Dodgers or Yankees). There are opportunity costs for every dollar spent on Monacada. I didn't say he was willing to spend an unlimited amount, or that he should. But that budget is clearly separate from the payroll/luxury tax. Neither is unlimited. But if the Sox go over the luxury tax limits this year, I don't think it will affect their international budget. They've already gone past that limit. Either they will deem Moncada worth whatever he;s asking + penalties, or they won't. Same as they (supposedly) do with all players. On a side note, Moncada's price alone will dwarf the international cap. His cost will be the vast majority of pretty much any team's international signing budget, right? So isn't his cost + penalties (which any team will occur if his price as high as estimated) very similar for all teams? I don't see how the tax is that much of a detriment to the Sox. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 26, 2014 8:31:49 GMT -5
No, there isn't. The luxury tax (MLB payroll) is completely different than the international signings budget. Completely different. We've been over this probably every year for the last 8 years. Moncada is going to cost $80m+. The most the Red Sox have ever spent in IFA is roughly $5m a year. Where do you think that extra $75m is going to come from? From Liverpool's budget |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 26, 2014 8:45:45 GMT -5
It doesn't count against the cap, but it comes from somewhere. It's a little naive to think that John Henry is willing to just spend significantly more money on the team out of his fierce desire to compete. If that was true, they'd have spent more in the IFA market in the last ten years (they've been more of a middle-of-the-road team in that realm historically, spending far less than teams like the Yankees and the Rangers) and spent more on payroll (if ownership didn't care about turning a profit, they could have regularly spent above the luxury tax in the last few years a la the Dodgers or Yankees). There are opportunity costs for every dollar spent on Monacada. I didn't say he was willing to spend an unlimited amount, or that he should. But that budget is clearly separate from the payroll/luxury tax. Neither is unlimited. But if the Sox go over the luxury tax limits this year, I don't think it will affect their international budget. They've already gone past that limit. Either they will deem Moncada worth whatever he;s asking + penalties, or they won't. Same as they (supposedly) do with all players. On a side note, Moncada's price alone will dwarf the international cap. His cost will be the vast majority of pretty much any team's international signing budget, right? So isn't his cost + penalties (which any team will occur if his price as high as estimated) very similar for all teams? I don't see how the tax is that much of a detriment to the Sox. I'm just saying that what Moncada is worth to the Red Sox will depend on how his all-in costs compare to what that money could buy you elsewhere. Value is relative-- a player is worth or not worth a given amount only because of the opportunity cost of that money (e.g., what you could buy with it if you spent it on someone/something else). The same logic applies with Moncada. Whether Moncada is worth $80m+ will depend on whether or not investing that money in him is a better investment than investing it elsewhere, whether that is investing it in other IFAs or in veteran MLB players or in John Henry's bank/investment accounts. You are right that every team will have to go through this calculus, so it doesn't mean the Red Sox are at a disadvantage relative to others. I'm just pointing out that the repeated refrain I've seen on this thread of "pay him whatever it takes to sign him" is not how the front office is going to approach it. No MLB team goes into a negotiation prepared to offer an actual blank check, and at $80m+, Moncada's total cost approaches the point where I wouldn't be too upset to see him sign with another team. |
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Nov 26, 2014 9:43:54 GMT -5
I never said to pay him whatever it takes only hat the payroll/luxury tax budget is separate from the international signings budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Nov 26, 2014 10:12:58 GMT -5
Moncada is going to cost $80m+. The most the Red Sox have ever spent in IFA is roughly $5m a year. Where do you think that extra $75m is going to come from? From Liverpool's budget They can't afford that right now, they need all the help they can get |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 26, 2014 10:38:24 GMT -5
I never said to pay him whatever it takes only hat the payroll/luxury tax budget is separate from the international signings budget. They're separate as a technical matter, but they both fall under the umbrella of total on-field personnel expenditures, and I'm fairly confident that a $75m+ bump in one subcategory is going to affect the other. |
|
|
|
Post by azblue on Nov 26, 2014 11:29:30 GMT -5
The amount of money that the Red Sox would spend on Moncada will be based on their estimate of his value to the organization. They have all the money that they need to make that commitment. It is laughable to say that the Red Sox cannot afford $80 million or even $120 million. If they think that he will be a star in the majors for the next 10-12 years, they will spend whatever is necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 26, 2014 11:55:25 GMT -5
They can't afford that right now, they need all the help they can get I wasn't really serious. It was just mocking what some Red Sox fans complained about when Henry bought the Liverpool club. |
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 26, 2014 12:23:28 GMT -5
I bet some Liverpool fans are complaining the Red Sox are spending money too.
|
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Nov 26, 2014 13:41:42 GMT -5
I bet some Liverpool fans are complaining the Red Sox are spending money too. Actually, they're too busy complaining that Liverpool spent so much money raiding Southampton for players instead of signing the players Southampton signed for a fraction of the cost. We should be hoping FSG's current spending binge goes better than their most recent Premier League spending binge. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 26, 2014 14:07:23 GMT -5
I bet some Liverpool fans are complaining the Red Sox are spending money too. Actually, they're too busy complaining that Liverpool spent so much money raiding Southampton for players instead of signing the players Southampton signed for a fraction of the cost. We should be hoping FSG's current spending binge goes better than their most recent Premier League spending binge. I'm sure there is some moneyball guru equivalent in soccer. Sounds like they're behind the times. |
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Nov 26, 2014 14:58:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tjb21 on Nov 26, 2014 14:59:42 GMT -5
I mean I still think they'll spend at or near the luxury tax regardless, so I guess I'd say the extra $75M from their "profits" or "bank account" as opposed to their MLB spending pool. It's an educated guess, but I would still expect them to spend towards the limit, much like they did when they posted $50M for Dice-k, since if I'm not mistaken, that didn't count towards the tax limit either It doesn't count against the cap, but it comes from somewhere. It's a little naive to think that John Henry is willing to just spend significantly more money on the team out of his fierce desire to compete. If that was true, they'd have spent more in the IFA market in the last ten years (they've been more of a middle-of-the-road team in that realm historically, spending far less than teams like the Yankees and the Rangers) and spent more on payroll (if ownership didn't care about turning a profit, they could have regularly spent above the luxury tax in the last few years a la the Dodgers or Yankees). There are opportunity costs for every dollar spent on Monacada. Apparently I'm bad at the quoting function... but this is spot on^. |
|
|
|
Post by bmitchsox on Nov 28, 2014 17:54:58 GMT -5
Figured i'd leave this here. Seems to be the only video on the internet of Moncada
|
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 28, 2014 18:07:20 GMT -5
Nice. I was looking for it a couple of days ago and only found a 9 sec video.
Edit: And now that I have actually seen the video he definitely looks jacked and like a physical specimen.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 28, 2014 20:01:34 GMT -5
Why is he playing 2b? Bah.
|
|
|
