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 umassgrad2005 on Mar 20, 2017 7:10:17 GMT -5
I think in that case you look at the Heyward for Miller trade. You trade one year of XB for 3 years of a lesser player or something like that. There will always be a bunch of teams willing to trade for a player like XB with one year on contract. If it doesn't work out they can always trade him at deadline when teams are willing to overpay.
I don't think the Red Sox would want a prospect that can't help them right away. Also I don't think you get a Torres. That was a clear overpay made at deadline to win a title. Maybe if we were out of race at deadline, but that would mean you would risk losing XB for almost nothing if you were a contending team.
I can see a GM like Theo making this his new go to strategy to retool. The same way he would let free agents sign else where like Ellsbury to get the picks. The thing is very few GMs believe in bridge years like Theo, so we'll see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 20, 2017 9:12:34 GMT -5
I don't see how Heyward-for-Miller is applicable. The Braves didn't have money, were coming off a 79-win season, and were going into a deep rebuild. They traded Kimbrel and Upton as well. The equivalent situation for the Red Sox would be if they aren't very good in 2018, hire a new GM, and go into a rebuilding phase. That's the disaster scenario, not the plan.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 20, 2017 11:55:13 GMT -5
I don't see how Heyward-for-Miller is applicable. The Braves didn't have money, were coming off a 79-win season, and were going into a deep rebuild. They traded Kimbrel and Upton as well. The equivalent situation for the Red Sox would be if they aren't very good in 2018, hire a new GM, and go into a rebuilding phase. That's the disaster scenario, not the plan. I'm talking about the trade, trading a to be free agent for a guy with 3 years control. Not the teams or why they made the trade. The Braves did very well turning one season of Heyward into 3 years of Miller. There is no reason the Red Sox need to be rebuilding to make that type of trade. Its simple really, they won't be able to sign everyone long-term. So do you trade a guy one year before free agency or keep him and get a pick after 4th round? The difference in picks for losing free agents as a luxury tax team is huge compared to the old system. You just can't say teams don't do that, because the whole system has greatly changed. We are in uncharted territory. For the Red Sox, what's better one year of Bradley and a top150 pick or 3 years of a Miller type player? Under the old system that top 40 pick was huge, you got to add elite talent to your farm system. A top150 pick is not even close to the same. The talent level is way less and you also don't get that big bump in your pool money.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Mar 20, 2017 11:59:52 GMT -5
I think in that case you look at the Heyward for Miller trade. You trade one year of XB for 3 years of a lesser player or something like that. There will always be a bunch of teams willing to trade for a player like XB with one year on contract. If it doesn't work out they can always trade him at deadline when teams are willing to overpay. I don't think the Red Sox would want a prospect that can't help them right away. Also I don't think you get a Torres. That was a clear overpay made at deadline to win a title. Maybe if we were out of race at deadline, but that would mean you would risk losing XB for almost nothing if you were a contending team. I can see a GM like Theo making this his new go to strategy to retool. The same way he would let free agents sign else where like Ellsbury to get the picks. The thing is very few GMs believe in bridge years like Theo, so we'll see what happens. I doubt it's that they don't believe in it, it's that they will not being afforded that luxury.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 20, 2017 12:17:28 GMT -5
I don't see how Heyward-for-Miller is applicable. The Braves didn't have money, were coming off a 79-win season, and were going into a deep rebuild. They traded Kimbrel and Upton as well. The equivalent situation for the Red Sox would be if they aren't very good in 2018, hire a new GM, and go into a rebuilding phase. That's the disaster scenario, not the plan. I'm talking about the trade, trading a to be free agent for a guy with 3 years control. Not the teams or why they made the trade. The Braves did very well turning one season of Heyward into 3 years of Miller. There is no reason the Red Sox need to be rebuilding to make that type of trade. Its simple really, they won't be able to sign everyone long-term. So do you trade a guy one year before free agency or keep him and get a pick after 4th round? The difference in picks for losing free agents as a luxury tax team is huge compared to the old system. You just can't say teams don't do that, because the whole system has greatly changed. We are in uncharted territory. For the Red Sox, what's better one year of Bradley and a top150 pick or 3 years of a Miller type player?Under the old system that top 40 pick was huge, you got to add elite talent to your farm system. A top150 pick is not even close to the same. The talent level is way less and you also don't get that big bump in your pool money. It depends on whether they have playoff aspirations, which they hopefully do. In that case, one year of JBJ is better (unless they had someone like Margot to step in, doh) I find it highly unlikely that they're going to have a 79 win season in 2018 leading to a total rebuild like Atlanta did. I also don't think those trades are going to be easy to make.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 20, 2017 12:30:50 GMT -5
For the Red Sox, what's better one year of Bradley and a top150 pick or 3 years of a Miller type player? If the Red Sox have a realistic chance to win a World Series and Bradley is his 2016 version, then Bradley and the pick. And remember, you'd need to have a trading partner who is a contender who would want/need Bradley for one year but also had an extra major league arm. That's a pretty slim fit. Basically a contending team with excess pitching and a hole in center. The Indians are the only team I can think of who fit that profile.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 20, 2017 14:56:22 GMT -5
For the Red Sox, what's better one year of Bradley and a top150 pick or 3 years of a Miller type player? If the Red Sox have a realistic chance to win a World Series and Bradley is his 2016 version, then Bradley and the pick. And remember, you'd need to have a trading partner who is a contender who would want/need Bradley for one year but also had an extra major league arm. That's a pretty slim fit. Basically a contending team with excess pitching and a hole in center. The Indians are the only team I can think of who fit that profile. Under the new set of rules what can you expect for trading an xb or a jbj. I guess that's my point? Under the old system it was fairly obvious because you got a high pick. Now do you roll the dice to win now? Or do you look at trading them away with the hope that you get someone close to playing in the bigs. I think these type of trades are more likely to happen in the off season not at the deadline. You have about 8 high ticket players coming due in a 2 to 3 yr window. Can't keep them all with the cap. Not assuming you are having a bad season. Just not enough money for all. So who do you keep and what should you expect back in return. Bradley or betts can not keep both. Is hanley gone in 2 yrs and who replaces him? travis? Pablo is gone in 3 yrs with devers and dalbac? How many of the big 3 pitchers do you/ can you keep. Who replaces xb? Looks like some fun years coming.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 20, 2017 16:58:58 GMT -5
I am starting to smell some Russian-troll tactics from the Dombrowski flackeys, just throw any idea out there, however fantastical, in hopes of muddying the waters (what do you hope to get from it? A job fetching Dombrowski's coffee? Holding his wine glass to his lips? Driving his golf cart?)
This whole idea that he'll save the day by trading one or more of Bradley, Bogaerts, Sale, Porcello, et al) in the next few years . . . Will.not.happen
I swear if Dombrowski traded Betts straight up for Cabrera (and he's just dumb enough to do it), we would see a deluge of posts from the usual suspects averring that Betts was never that good, just in line with the fill-in-the-blank (Margot, Guerra, Espinoza, Moncada, Kopech, Dubon) "are garbage" garbage we've seen in the last year
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 20, 2017 17:34:49 GMT -5
The mlb draft and the international draft have salary limits. The owners, john and the gang, want a consistent winner but also are looking at controlling salary up to a point. The cap will be around 200. You have 3 starters in the range of 25 each. Betts ,Bradley, and zander are looking at avg 25 each. 6 players at 150 of your 200 And you need to sign 34 more players for 50 to 60 total. First of the 6 who do you keep? Second, of the players you do not keep how do you replace them? Totally a new world.
|
|
|
Post by ryan24 on Mar 20, 2017 17:37:00 GMT -5
I am starting to smell some Russian-troll tactics from the Dombrowski flackeys, just throw any idea out there, however fantastical, in hopes of muddying the waters (what do you hope to get from it? A job fetching Dombrowski's coffee? Holding his wine glass to his lips? Driving his golf cart?) This whole idea that he'll save the day by trading one or more of Bradley, Bogaerts, Sale, Porcello, et al) in the next few years . . . Will.not.happen I swear if Dombrowski traded Betts straight up for Cabrera (and he's just dumb enough to do it), we would see a deluge of posts from the usual suspects averring that Betts was never that good, just in line with the fill-in-the-blank (Margot, Guerra, Espinoza, Moncada, Kopech, Dubon) "are garbage" garbage we've seen in the last year Not sure I understand this post? Who is trolling?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 20, 2017 18:02:27 GMT -5
You guys are getting all hung up on my example, as in it has to be Bradley and it has to be for a pitcher. That's not my point. It's all about the one year of team control versus 3 years. The Heyward trade is just an example, as was me using Bradley.
Look at all our young talent, there is like 10-15 players that you could look at doing this with in the future.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 20, 2017 19:55:59 GMT -5
This is going to be an interesting development to watch. FA compensation is now essentially valueless. So the team that figured out how to work the system best will have an advantage for a few years until the rest of the league figures it out. This is a very interesting development with the new contract that, I guess I missed it, but this is the first time anyone saw this situation. EXAMPLE, lets say you do not think you can sign xb to a long term contract and you have him under contract for one more year. You trade him to another team but the new team knows they have him for one year, because he has boras as an agent and will automatically test the open market. What would the sox get back? All star player and excellent bat. Normally I think we would all like back a prospect like torres with the yanks and a pitcher close to the majors. But, with only one year of control as a given would a team give up that type of package. Remember this is an example and the yanks are not trading torres, especially to the sox. If you are in the spot that the cubs were in with chapman last year yes, but under normal circumstances I would think not. The new contract certainly changes the way a team is built. Yeah, it's probably going to affect both when teams are willing to trade (maybe earlier, because of...) and what they get back (less, since comp for the acquiring team will be less). Obviously, cap figures will be in play too. This was kind of what I was alluding to with Sale, Porcello, et al, although I never addressed the reduced comp outright. There's going to be either an immediate hit in performance, at least, at the time of trade (say offseason '18 to deadline '19), or one in both performance and overall team talent if they leave as FAs (getting a minimally valuable pick or two back, but not MLB-ready or high-end young MiLB talent). There's a disincentive to keep guys like that through the ends of their contracts...which may portend significant 2019 rather than 2020 turnover. IMO, that may be for the best anyway, but it's not Dombrowski's M.O.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 20, 2017 20:03:28 GMT -5
I'm talking about the trade, trading a to be free agent for a guy with 3 years control. Not the teams or why they made the trade. The Braves did very well turning one season of Heyward into 3 years of Miller. There is no reason the Red Sox need to be rebuilding to make that type of trade. Its simple really, they won't be able to sign everyone long-term. So do you trade a guy one year before free agency or keep him and get a pick after 4th round? The difference in picks for losing free agents as a luxury tax team is huge compared to the old system. You just can't say teams don't do that, because the whole system has greatly changed. We are in uncharted territory. For the Red Sox, what's better one year of Bradley and a top150 pick or 3 years of a Miller type player?Under the old system that top 40 pick was huge, you got to add elite talent to your farm system. A top150 pick is not even close to the same. The talent level is way less and you also don't get that big bump in your pool money. It depends on whether they have playoff aspirations, which they hopefully do. In that case, one year of JBJ is better (unless they had someone like Margot to step in, doh) I find it highly unlikely that they're going to have a 79 win season in 2018 leading to a total rebuild like Atlanta did. I also don't think those trades are going to be easy to make. That's my concern...and what I consider the worst-case scenario. A progressively more mediocre team that takes half a decade to fade to mediocre irrelevance (80-82 wins or so), but where the GM keeps adding veterans to try to patch things rather than an implosion (2013-2014) that leads to a committed rebuild. I'd rather watch the 2015 Sox than the 2016 Tigers any day.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 20, 2017 20:10:46 GMT -5
You guys are getting all hung up on my example, as in it has to be Bradley and it has to be for a pitcher. That's not my point. It's all about the one year of team control versus 3 years. The Heyward trade is just an example, as was me using Bradley. Look at all our young talent, there is like 10-15 players that you could look at doing this with in the future. If you trade a player with one year of team control for a player with three years of team control, the player with three years of team control will just about always be a significantly worse player. To take an oversimplification, instead of: Year 1: 3 Year 2: 0 Year 3: 0 you've gone to: Year 1: 1 Year 2: 1 Year 3: 1 You've spread the damage out over three years rather than concentrating it in one year. But you're still a worse team.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 20, 2017 20:13:33 GMT -5
The mlb draft and the international draft have salary limits. The owners, john and the gang, want a consistent winner but also are looking at controlling salary up to a point. The cap will be around 200. You have 3 starters in the range of 25 each. Betts ,Bradley, and zander are looking at avg 25 each. 6 players at 150 of your 200 And you need to sign 34 more players for 50 to 60 total. First of the 6 who do you keep? Second, of the players you do not keep how do you replace them? Totally a new world. Yeah, I went through those finances here and elsewhere. If you think about it, it's Price ($32M) plus Sale (probably $32-$35Mx7-10 yr) plus Porcello ($27-$30M, if he's the '16 version or close to it). I see first-year FA year extension costs (i.e., the first year NOT bought out of arb for each player) as about $20/$25/$30 for JBJ/X/Mookie. So between $160-$170M for those six. Plus, Rodriguez will be arb-3 I believe in 2020, and if he's anything close to TOR he's getting upwards of $15M. So that's roughly $180M on seven players for a theoretical 2020 "intact" team, plus Pedroia's $13M or so. It's absolutely not feasible. Two, maybe three, of those first six will have to go. Let's hope the team gets some value back.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 20, 2017 20:25:48 GMT -5
If Eduardo Rodriguez is actually a top of the rotation starter and Bradley, Bogaerts, and Betts really end up worth $75M AAV they have a really pleasant problem in the meantime.
Man, the Red Sox really should've gotten some value back for Pedro, Damon, and Lowe before they hit free agency. Look at all the talent they lost!
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 20, 2017 21:20:33 GMT -5
If Eduardo Rodriguez is actually a top of the rotation starter and Bradley, Bogaerts, and Betts really end up worth $75M AAV they have a really pleasant problem in the meantime. Man, the Red Sox really should've gotten some value back for Pedro, Damon, and Lowe before they hit free agency. Look at all the talent they lost! If everybody produces at roughly what they did last year, those are the salaries those players are going to get. That absolutely doesn't mean they're going to be any better than last year as a team. Sale likely improves them a bit, but Ortiz is gone. The estimated AAVs are a reflection of their players' current performance, with the *possibility* of Rodriguez being a viable Porcello alternative. The issue is that the team can't keep all of those players past 2019, and gets nothing back if they don't trade players. C'mon...this is a ludicrously specious post on multiple levels. It borders on trolling. Btw, the Sox got high draft picks for those players back then...they get squat now.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 20, 2017 21:45:09 GMT -5
That last paragraph was sarcasm
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 20, 2017 21:54:28 GMT -5
Chicken Little syndrome seems to be rampant.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 20, 2017 22:03:51 GMT -5
You guys are getting all hung up on my example, as in it has to be Bradley and it has to be for a pitcher. That's not my point. It's all about the one year of team control versus 3 years. The Heyward trade is just an example, as was me using Bradley. Look at all our young talent, there is like 10-15 players that you could look at doing this with in the future. If you trade a player with one year of team control for a player with three years of team control, the player with three years of team control will just about always be a significantly worse player. To take an oversimplification, instead of: Year 1: 3 Year 2: 0 Year 3: 0 you've gone to: Year 1: 1 Year 2: 1 Year 3: 1 You've spread the damage out over three years rather than concentrating it in one year. But you're still a worse team. I would say more like 3 for one year compared to 1.5-2.0 per year for 3 years. So most likely your a worst team for 1 year, but a better team for the two years after. There's no way your a worse team in year 2 and 3, that's the whole point.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 20, 2017 22:13:08 GMT -5
If Eduardo Rodriguez is actually a top of the rotation starter and Bradley, Bogaerts, and Betts really end up worth $75M AAV they have a really pleasant problem in the meantime. Man, the Red Sox really should've gotten some value back for Pedro, Damon, and Lowe before they hit free agency. Look at all the talent they lost! If everybody produces at roughly what they did last year, those are the salaries those players are going to get. That absolutely doesn't mean they're going to be any better than last year as a team. Sale likely improves them a bit, but Ortiz is gone. The estimated AAVs are a reflection of their players' current performance, with the *possibility* of Rodriguez being a viable Porcello alternative. The issue is that the team can't keep all of those players past 2019, and gets nothing back if they don't trade players. C'mon...this is a ludicrously specious post on multiple levels. It borders on trolling. Btw, the Sox got high draft picks for those players back then...they get squat now. The Red Sox traded Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Michael Kopech, Manuel Margot, Javier Guerra, Mauricio Dubon, Travis Shaw, Logan Allen, Carlos Asuaje, Josh Pennington, Victor Diaz, Luis Alexander Basabe, Luis Alejandro Basabe, and Jonathan Aro to build a stacked big-league roster that would stand an excellent chance to win in the short term. Now, having got to the point where they are at the precipice of being a World Championship team with that major league roster they have assembled through both a bevy of young home-grown talent mixed with high-quality, prominent major league players, they're going to be all... "you know, if we don't trade Xander now then we really could be up the creek without a paddle in 2022!" That's the theory here, right? You've concluded they might trade Bogaerts, Bradley, Rodriguez, or some other high end talent at the risk of their current excellence after trading all of the dudes I listed in the first paragraph. They don't get "nothing" if they fail to trade current performance for future performance. They get current performance! Which is what they've set their entire organizational strategy to build for! If you're going to trade Xander Bogaerts because he might leave due to free agency and you're worried about compete in 2021, then you aren't trading Moncada and Kopech and Espinoza for expensive and/or soon-to-be-expensive major leaguers. That's so contradictory that it is absolutely head spinning. You guys are getting all hung up on my example, as in it has to be Bradley and it has to be for a pitcher. "I'm not sure I've ever seen a contending team with money trade its prominent players for future value. I'd like a specific example of that happening." "Here is a specific example." "Hmm, okay. Well, here are the reasons that example is not apt." "You are getting hung up on my example." .... The whole point is that there aren't examples of this. It's all theoretical. When you try to put actual real-life examples of this behavior by an organization together then it totally falls apart.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 20, 2017 22:14:59 GMT -5
Haven't checked the entire thread yet, so I don't know if anyone's made a point of this yet. Something to keep in mind is that the luxury tax will increase 11% by 2021. That may play a roll in all of this. Here's the history, and short-term future of the tax threshold given the just concluded CBA: Year Threshold 2003 $117,000,000 2004 $120,500,000 2005 $128,000,000 2006 $136,500,000 2007 $148,000,000 2008 $155,000,000 2009 $162,000,000 2010 $170,000,000 2011 $178,000,000 2012 $178,000,000 2013 $178,000,000 2014 $189,000,000 2015 $189,000,000 2016 $189,000,000 2017 $195,000,000 2018 $197,000,000 2019 $206,000,000 2020 $208,000,000 2021 $210,000,000
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 20, 2017 23:16:14 GMT -5
If everybody produces at roughly what they did last year, those are the salaries those players are going to get. That absolutely doesn't mean they're going to be any better than last year as a team. Sale likely improves them a bit, but Ortiz is gone. The estimated AAVs are a reflection of their players' current performance, with the *possibility* of Rodriguez being a viable Porcello alternative. The issue is that the team can't keep all of those players past 2019, and gets nothing back if they don't trade players. C'mon...this is a ludicrously specious post on multiple levels. It borders on trolling. Btw, the Sox got high draft picks for those players back then...they get squat now. The Red Sox traded Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Michael Kopech, Manuel Margot, Javier Guerra, Mauricio Dubon, Travis Shaw, Logan Allen, Carlos Asuaje, Josh Pennington, Victor Diaz, Luis Alexander Basabe, Luis Alejandro Basabe, and Jonathan Aro to build a stacked big-league roster that would stand an excellent chance to win in the short term. Now, having got to the point where they are at the precipice of being a World Championship team with that major league roster they have assembled through both a bevy of young home-grown talent mixed with high-quality, prominent major league players, they're going to be all... "you know, if we don't trade Xander now then we really could be up the creek without a paddle in 2022!" That's the theory here, right? You've concluded they might trade Bogaerts, Bradley, Rodriguez, or some other high end talent at the risk of their current excellence after trading all of the dudes I listed in the first paragraph. They don't get "nothing" if they fail to trade current performance for future performance. They get current performance! Which is what they've set their entire organizational strategy to build for! If you're going to trade Xander Bogaerts because he might leave due to free agency and you're worried about compete in 2021, then you aren't trading Moncada and Kopech and Espinoza for expensive and/or soon-to-be-expensive major leaguers. That's so contradictory that it is absolutely head spinning. You guys are getting all hung up on my example, as in it has to be Bradley and it has to be for a pitcher. "I'm not sure I've ever seen a contending team with money trade its prominent players for future value. I'd like a specific example of that happening." "Here is a specific example." "Hmm, okay. Well, here are the reasons that example is not apt." "You are getting hung up on my example." .... The whole point is that there aren't examples of this. It's all theoretical. When you try to put actual real-life examples of this behavior by an organization together then it totally falls apart. Right, they trade the opportunity of a much longer stretch of contention for a slightly better immediate ability to contend. If they don't trade several players, they will have a three year window. I think that's a poor business strategy. Best case long-term scenario is that they actually trade a couple of players in the 2018-19 offseason and get some legitimate talent back. Or they can squeeze three years and let them go via FA. Yes, they get "current performance." But it's arguable that they could've gotten very nearly that performance with far less costly (in terms of talent, and money, given Moncada's $63M bonus expense) means, and preserved their salary flexibility. It is my opinion that they struck a Faustian bargain. Anyone who prefers a "go for it, damn the future" approach is entitled to their differing *opinion*. But it's a FACT that they can't afford to keep this roster intact beyond 2019, and they will likely lose at least two of those six (Sale, Porcello, Price, JBJ, Bogaerts, Betts) players because of it, without a single internal replacement barring the ascension of Rodriguez or Groome pulling a ridiculously unlikely Gooden/Hernandez.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 20, 2017 23:23:53 GMT -5
If everybody produces at roughly what they did last year, those are the salaries those players are going to get. That absolutely doesn't mean they're going to be any better than last year as a team. Sale likely improves them a bit, but Ortiz is gone. The estimated AAVs are a reflection of their players' current performance, with the *possibility* of Rodriguez being a viable Porcello alternative. The issue is that the team can't keep all of those players past 2019, and gets nothing back if they don't trade players. C'mon...this is a ludicrously specious post on multiple levels. It borders on trolling. Btw, the Sox got high draft picks for those players back then...they get squat now. The Red Sox traded Yoan Moncada, Anderson Espinoza, Michael Kopech, Manuel Margot, Javier Guerra, Mauricio Dubon, Travis Shaw, Logan Allen, Carlos Asuaje, Josh Pennington, Victor Diaz, Luis Alexander Basabe, Luis Alejandro Basabe, and Jonathan Aro to build a stacked big-league roster that would stand an excellent chance to win in the short term. Now, having got to the point where they are at the precipice of being a World Championship team with that major league roster they have assembled through both a bevy of young home-grown talent mixed with high-quality, prominent major league players, they're going to be all... "you know, if we don't trade Xander now then we really could be up the creek without a paddle in 2022!" That's the theory here, right? You've concluded they might trade Bogaerts, Bradley, Rodriguez, or some other high end talent at the risk of their current excellence after trading all of the dudes I listed in the first paragraph. They don't get "nothing" if they fail to trade current performance for future performance. They get current performance! Which is what they've set their entire organizational strategy to build for! If you're going to trade Xander Bogaerts because he might leave due to free agency and you're worried about compete in 2021, then you aren't trading Moncada and Kopech and Espinoza for expensive and/or soon-to-be-expensive major leaguers. That's so contradictory that it is absolutely head spinning. You guys are getting all hung up on my example, as in it has to be Bradley and it has to be for a pitcher. "I'm not sure I've ever seen a contending team with money trade its prominent players for future value. I'd like a specific example of that happening." "Here is a specific example." "Hmm, okay. Well, here are the reasons that example is not apt." "You are getting hung up on my example." .... The whole point is that there aren't examples of this. It's all theoretical. When you try to put actual real-life examples of this behavior by an organization together then it totally falls apart. Btw, in no way did I say anything of the sort re: "If we don't trade Bogaerts now..." If I did, I'd love to see you locate it. My point was that they put themselves in a stupid, unnecessary pickle where they'll either have to trade him and/or someone else, or face a drastic salary crunch and loss of those players via FA. Which means they're unlikely to get even their 3-yr window unless they absorb a major talent efflux after 2019, and become a much weaker team. I'm not saying they need to make a trade now. They already bought in. That's even more foolish than heading down this path in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 20, 2017 23:33:52 GMT -5
Haven't checked the entire thread yet, so I don't know if anyone's made a point of this yet. Something to keep in mind is that the luxury tax will increase 11% by 2021. That may play a roll in all of this. Here's the history, and short-term future of the tax threshold given the just concluded CBA: Year Threshold 2003 $117,000,000 2004 $120,500,000 2005 $128,000,000 2006 $136,500,000 2007 $148,000,000 2008 $155,000,000 2009 $162,000,000 2010 $170,000,000 2011 $178,000,000 2012 $178,000,000 2013 $178,000,000 2014 $189,000,000 2015 $189,000,000 2016 $189,000,000 2017 $195,000,000 2018 $197,000,000 2019 $206,000,000 2020 $208,000,000 2021 $210,000,000 If they're close to/at $210M in 2021, I think reasonable best case is Betts/Bogaerts extended, Devers up and solid, JBJ probably gone (I have no idea who the OF will be), and Rodriguez doing a reasonable 2016 Porcello imitation. Maybe Kelly or Barnes or Thornburg is the closer. Benintendi will need to be an above-avg regular. Travis would need to be a passable 1b. In that scenario, they would have Wright as the 4, some arm like Groome or even Shawaryn as the 5, and enough salary room to fill out the roster. Hopefully they'd have extended Rodriguez on a relatively team-friendly deal. If Devers and Benintendi are above-avg players, there's not much talent difference between the 2016 and 2021 versions. That's a lot of ifs, but it's certainly possible.
|
|
|