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 soxjim on Jan 6, 2019 19:57:30 GMT -5
I don’t want to see us spend big on a reliever, i’d rather see them try and make it work without doing it first and acquire one through a trade if necessary. Getting under the cap after next year will be big and we don’t need relievers eating up valuable space. I don’t understand why people are so set on getting under the cap to save the owners money. I just don’t get the logic; they are making money they should keep spending in good teams; if they get to a point where the team isn’t good then I’d expect them to tear down payroll. I don’t expect them to create a bad/mediocre team by tearing down payroll. Because every team looks to do it. Yanks and Dodgers just recently did it. Hey I can post and make predictions going up to $300m but I choose not to. I ca pretend Henry will spend that much but when I see every other team it seems they get under every three years, then why wouldn;t I assume the Sox are going to try to do it too? Every other team does it. It's easy for us to tell Henry how to spend his money.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 6, 2019 20:40:59 GMT -5
I don’t understand why people are so set on getting under the cap to save the owners money. I just don’t get the logic; they are making money they should keep spending in good teams; if they get to a point where the team isn’t good then I’d expect them to tear down payroll. I don’t expect them to create a bad/mediocre team by tearing down payroll. Because every team looks to do it. Yanks and Dodgers just recently did it. Hey I can post and make predictions going up to $300m but I choose not to. I ca pretend Henry will spend that much but when I see every other team it seems they get under every three years, then why wouldn;t I assume the Sox are going to try to do it too? Every other team does it. It's easy for us to tell Henry how to spend his money. The Yankees paid the tax for 15 straight years, the Dodgers for what 5, 6, 7 years? Yet we have to reset every 3 years? They racked up hundreds of millions in tax bills, yet we can't afford 10 to 20 million a year for a once every couple decades type team? I don't think anyone is saying they should go to 300 million, but going to like 200 million is just as crazy given this team and its revenue.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 6, 2019 20:57:26 GMT -5
Because every team looks to do it. Yanks and Dodgers just recently did it. Hey I can post and make predictions going up to $300m but I choose not to. I ca pretend Henry will spend that much but when I see every other team it seems they get under every three years, then why wouldn;t I assume the Sox are going to try to do it too? Every other team does it. It's easy for us to tell Henry how to spend his money. The Yankees paid the tax for 15 straight years, the Dodgers for what 5, 6, 7 years? Yet we have to reset every 3 years? They racked up hundreds of millions in tax bills, yet we can't afford 10 to 20 million a year for a once every couple decades type team? I don't think anyone is saying they should go to 300 million, but going to like 200 million is just as crazy given this team and its revenue. IMO 15 years ago is irrelevant. What is relevant is today. In today's environment both showed they want to go under the tax. If they didn't then why didn't they just keep spending? IMO because they feel a need to do so. Just like imo they dumped Girardi. Why not od what the old man used to do and block the red sox from getting players too? Again it's easy for you and I to spend Henry's money. Let me at him!!
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 6, 2019 21:09:25 GMT -5
Dodgers have debt issues and reports say the Yankees are getting ready to go up for sale. That is why! Yea you get to a point were you need to balance the books at some point. It's not crazy like you make it sound to expect a team to spend 50% of its revenue on payroll. Why would you argue against that? Heck that isn't counting the actual NESN revenue either. It just makes zero sense. All were saying is as revenues go up, so should are payroll. Henry won't be making less money. Heck he made more money last year than he likely ever has with a team record payroll.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 6, 2019 21:37:45 GMT -5
Dodgers have debt issues and reports say the Yankees are getting ready to go up for sale. That is why! Yea you get to a point were you need to balance the books at some point. It's not crazy like you make it sound to expect a team to spend 50% of its revenue on payroll. Why would you argue against that? Heck that isn't counting the actual NESN revenue either. It just makes zero sense. All were saying is as revenues go up, so should are payroll. Henry won't be making less money. Heck he made more money last year than he likely ever has with a team record payroll. If we lived close to one another and were friends I'd bet you a lot of money if the Sox would go under. The fact is the odogers and Yanks have gone under the cap for a reaosn just as every team has. Every team does it. I find it hard to believe only our team will now spend more.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,768
|
Post by gerry on Jan 6, 2019 22:06:03 GMT -5
Spend to repeat in 2019, which they are doing as they are already over the line. See how it goes keeping XB, etc. If come the next offseason it looks like they can threepeat, then postpone the re-set til 2021. That seems to be their strategy, and it is a good one, as this team is still evolving.
Meanwhile, there are good RP arms left, and lots to explore with both ends of this bullpen from Johnson to Barnes, Erasmo to Putnam, Shawaryn to Feltman. Color me excited.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 6, 2019 22:28:59 GMT -5
www.mlb.com/news/craig-kimbrel-could-return-to-red-sox/c-302349102It has been said that Atlanta doesn't want to go 4 years.. How about being creative with opt-outs to get him for just 1 year? 2019: $18M player opt-out 2020: $12M 2021: $12M 2022: $10M Then he can say he got 4/$52, and end up leaving after a year. Plus he'd have the security of the additional years in case of disaster. Of course in the end, I expect our bullpen to be bolstered by a Swihart trade. I also think that Lakins and Feltman are going to be in the bullpen before it gets too hot and Hernandez will bolster it later in the season. If the Sox paid Kimbrel 18 million in 2019, then Kimbrel would be making 10 million a year for the next 3 years in a 4 year deal for 48 million. This actually may be the best idea if you put a opt out after year one if the Sox REALLY want to spend the money in 2019. Kimbrel would almost certainly opt out in 2020 unless he had a train wreck of a 2019 season. I wonder where you got that idea from? Jimed, I remember when you first posted this and I thought it was a great idea, but I didn’t think there was a chance Kimbrel would do it. I think it’s looking more and more likely he does, or something like it. I’d be perfectly happy with a deal like this. The de-escalating salaries/front load means even after a so-so year and opting in, based on Britton’s deal, Kimbrel would likely retain some (significant?) trade value on an effective 3/34, and it would give the Sox this year to sort out the Lakins/Feltman/Hernandez?/Houck?/Shawaryn? situation, along with getting a better understanding of Barnes/Brasier and their ceilings, plus maybe a reclamation/MLB development project like Brewer.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 6, 2019 22:46:33 GMT -5
Also, as to UMass’s point, I’m all for the team spending big. They can and probably should carry a $240M payroll with their revenue stream and the core that they have, on the run they’re on. BUT, I think ideally they get under the threshold for a year to reset the penalties. Sort of a soft reset that forces them to make some smart personnel decisions and create some turnover, which is part of a healthy organization. I’m not sure resetting necessarily prohibits fielding a great team, either. But dropping Porcello’s salary (and Panda coming off the books) gets them close, and ideally it also forces them to draw a line on Bogey (who I want back, but within reason), while encouraging them to give longer looks at young guys on the verge, including Shawaryn, Hernandez, and probably Houck. Best-case they also work real hard to extend Mookie, Beni, and Rodriguez within that framework. The salary certainty of those longer-term deals then clarifies need/risk at other spots. For example, if JBJ’s swing work really bears fruit, then he might command an extension and I’d have less issue with a return to over-cap to keep him around for 4-5 more years. And maybe it becomes clear that with Porcello gone (and maybe Sale), they need to sign a guy like Gerrit Cole (yes please). I actually think the resetting of payroll penalties every 3-4 years is probably best for organizational health, because it requires the use of non-linear thinking to mine for ways to reduce costs. It’s a self-imposed big-market version of TB’s innovation strategy.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,007
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 7, 2019 2:33:34 GMT -5
www.mlb.com/news/craig-kimbrel-could-return-to-red-sox/c-302349102It has been said that Atlanta doesn't want to go 4 years.. How about being creative with opt-outs to get him for just 1 year? 2019: $18M player opt-out 2020: $12M 2021: $12M 2022: $10M Then he can say he got 4/$52, and end up leaving after a year. Plus he'd have the security of the additional years in case of disaster. Of course in the end, I expect our bullpen to be bolstered by a Swihart trade. I also think that Lakins and Feltman are going to be in the bullpen before it gets too hot and Hernandez will bolster it later in the season. My latest take on things:
1) We can be pretty certain that they've offered Kimbrel 1/$18-ish, since it makes enormous sense, and is seems pretty likely that Kimbrel hasn't ruled it out, based on reports they've talked. Your solution is clever and could provide the extra necessary incentive ... but it would, I believe, hit them with $4M towards the tax in 2020 after he opts out. So a straight 1-year deal would be better for the Sox.
2) You can bet that they have a list of all the guys who might have to settle for a 1-year deal, have done extensive scouting and analytics, have ranked them, and intend to sign the top available guy. They'd do this even if Kimbrel returns.
3) Two explanations for Robertson. First, their spreadsheets tell them that they can't commit any relief money in that salary range for 2020. Ottavino talks are a smokescreen because they don't want to tip their hand on this. Their lack of interest in Robertson was because the Sox would be such a perfect fit for him that they couldn't trust him turning down even a low initial offer.
Second, the interest in Ottavino is legit and they just weren't interested in Robertson.
In scenario one, or if they get outbid for Ottavino and Kimbrel doesn't return, they sign two one-year guys as long as the second guy projects to be more valuable than Workman. If that guy is a LHR, that's probably true by definition.
So I think it looks like:
Best 1-year guy (probably RHR)
Kimbrel, Ottavino, best opposite-handed 1-year guy, or pass if no one excites them.
Last thought: if they have several 1-year guys they love, that would contribute to a decision not to commit any $$ for 2020. Ditto for being higher on Feltman and/or Lakins than we think they are, and/or being more hopeful for a Brewer breakout and/or a Thornburg or Smith comeback.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Jan 7, 2019 8:32:50 GMT -5
I wonder if Greg Holland could be brought in at a reasonable number/yrs at this point? Maybe something involving options on both sides to give him an opportunity to show that the end of last year was really where he’s at compared to his time at St Louis? Do you mean as the closer or one more arm? What I'm trying to understand is why he or any other replacement level reliever should get money from a team that's trying to keep salary below that second threshold. The glow that still seems to radiate from those faded arms might just be from all the Ben-Gay. The Sox have much better options in-house. I was thinking as a guy who could be in the mix as closer or set-up man. His numbers after going to the Nationals were impressive and there's been a lot written about his lack of Spring Training affecting his performance with the Cardinals. I threw him out there as a potential option only for people who are looking for them to bring in an established arm (probably not a lot of guys on this site).
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 7, 2019 9:34:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 7, 2019 13:27:28 GMT -5
Dodgers have debt issues and reports say the Yankees are getting ready to go up for sale. That is why! Yea you get to a point were you need to balance the books at some point. It's not crazy like you make it sound to expect a team to spend 50% of its revenue on payroll. Why would you argue against that? Heck that isn't counting the actual NESN revenue either. It just makes zero sense. All were saying is as revenues go up, so should are payroll. Henry won't be making less money. Heck he made more money last year than he likely ever has with a team record payroll. If we lived close to one another and were friends I'd bet you a lot of money if the Sox would go under. The fact is the odogers and Yanks have gone under the cap for a reaosn just as every team has. Every team does it. I find it hard to believe only our team will now spend more. The Yankees were a team that out spent other teams for a long time. Then George died, their team got old and ineffective they didn’t have young player ready so they took the opportunity to drop pay roll like they should. What we don’t know yet is if Hal is going to turn cheap on his fan base. It would be great if he did. When the Sox team gets old and ineffective that’s when they should and as a fan to expect anything different for a team raking in the profits is baffling to me. “Other teams do it so we should to” is poppycock.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 7, 2019 13:31:28 GMT -5
Also, if you really want to reset down the road and have Ottavino on a 3 year deal and Kimbrel on a 4 year deal then you can trade them during a deadline for a huge prospect haul to a desperate team and restock your system. We have the two Wizards working with the staff so you don’t have to worry. If the tax long term is the issue then front load the deals so the acquiring teams are getting cheaper players thus increasing their value.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 7, 2019 14:15:30 GMT -5
If we lived close to one another and were friends I'd bet you a lot of money if the Sox would go under. The fact is the odogers and Yanks have gone under the cap for a reaosn just as every team has. Every team does it. I find it hard to believe only our team will now spend more. The Yankees were a team that out spent other teams for a long time. Then George died, their team got old and ineffective they didn’t have young player ready so they took the opportunity to drop pay roll like they should. What we don’t know yet is if Hal is going to turn cheap on his fan base. It would be great if he did. When the Sox team gets old and ineffective that’s when they should and as a fan to expect anything different for a team raking in the profits is baffling to me. “Other teams do it so we should to” is poppycock. The Yankees outspent other teams for a long time when there were almost no penalties for doing so and when players of free agency status still had a good 5-10 of high production years left in their careers because of PEDs. That has nothing to do with today. If the Red Sox do not reset, resign everyone and do not some kind of mini-rebuild to restock their prospects, it's just a matter of time before they're too old and ineffective. And at that point it will be a disgusting and embarrassing rebuild. The Red Sox did a mini-rebuild after 2011 because of one of the best farm systems ever. Next time they won't be as lucky to start with that.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 7, 2019 14:21:19 GMT -5
I'm not arguing against or not the Sox resetting, but if George were alive for the Yankees today, you could argue that he wouldn't give 2 craps about a tax.
George was the extreme fan of a owner who did whatever it took to win, spending whatever it took. He was completely different from how teams are normally run nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 7, 2019 14:46:01 GMT -5
Options continue to dwindle. Now the Sox fallback plans are leaving the board.
Add- Kelvin makes a lot of sense for the White Sox. He isn't expected to be healthy until June. The White Sox aren't expected to be really good in 2019 again. 2020 is where they are looking to build towards. Kelvin is still young and gives them a impact arm in the bullpen in the future.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jan 7, 2019 14:52:34 GMT -5
At this point would you rather have Kimbrell (wants too much money and years) Allen (on downside of career) or Holland (on downside of career)? I would say no to all 3 of those guys and focus on building the bullpen internally with their current major league relievers, plus Lakins, Hernandez and Feldman.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 7, 2019 14:56:36 GMT -5
At this point would you rather have Kimbrell (wants too much money and years) Allen (on downside of career) or Holland (on downside of career)? I would say no to all 3 of those guys and focus on building the bullpen internally with their current major league relievers, plus Lakins, Hernandez and Feldman. That may cost you a few wins in the beginning of 2019 in a year where you're going for it all again.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 7, 2019 15:29:22 GMT -5
The Yankees were a team that out spent other teams for a long time. Then George died, their team got old and ineffective they didn’t have young player ready so they took the opportunity to drop pay roll like they should. What we don’t know yet is if Hal is going to turn cheap on his fan base. It would be great if he did. When the Sox team gets old and ineffective that’s when they should and as a fan to expect anything different for a team raking in the profits is baffling to me. “Other teams do it so we should to” is poppycock. The Yankees outspent other teams for a long time when there were almost no penalties for doing so and when players of free agency status still had a good 5-10 of high production years left in their careers because of PEDs. That has nothing to do with today. If the Red Sox do not reset, resign everyone and do not some kind of mini-rebuild to restock their prospects, it's just a matter of time before they're too old and ineffective. And at that point it will be a disgusting and embarrassing rebuild. The Red Sox did a mini-rebuild after 2011 because of one of the best farm systems ever. Next time they won't be as lucky to start with that. Money is money - if the tax line was 270 and you’d spend 270 then you should be willing to spend 270 when there’s a tax (taking tax into the formula). Teams are using the tax lines as a de facto salary cap to give them an exclude to hoard more money. No one is suggesting to pay the tax for mediocre teams.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 7, 2019 15:48:06 GMT -5
The Yankees outspent other teams for a long time when there were almost no penalties for doing so and when players of free agency status still had a good 5-10 of high production years left in their careers because of PEDs. That has nothing to do with today. If the Red Sox do not reset, resign everyone and do not some kind of mini-rebuild to restock their prospects, it's just a matter of time before they're too old and ineffective. And at that point it will be a disgusting and embarrassing rebuild. The Red Sox did a mini-rebuild after 2011 because of one of the best farm systems ever. Next time they won't be as lucky to start with that. Money is money - if the tax line was 270 and you’d spend 270 then you should be willing to spend 270 when there’s a tax (taking tax into the formula). Teams are using the tax lines as a de facto salary cap to give them an exclude to hoard more money. No one is suggesting to pay the tax for mediocre teams. Regardless, haven't we established that older declining players are not the way to build championship teams anymore? You need the next great young players more than the former young players who are declining. Spending money is not equal to having a good team under this current CBA. They may coincide at times, but it's no longer possible to buy championships with money. I haven't seen a championship building model that can last indefinitely without rebuilding, so it's probably a matter of when, not if. Having the 29th to 30th best farm system isn't going to help. Hopefully they get lucky with drafting and player development and resist the urge to trade which would help quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 7, 2019 17:45:55 GMT -5
Money is money - if the tax line was 270 and you’d spend 270 then you should be willing to spend 270 when there’s a tax (taking tax into the formula). Teams are using the tax lines as a de facto salary cap to give them an exclude to hoard more money. No one is suggesting to pay the tax for mediocre teams. Regardless, haven't we established that older declining players are not the way to build championship teams anymore? You need the next great young players more than the former young players who are declining. Spending money is not equal to having a good team under this current CBA. They may coincide at times, but it's no longer possible to buy championships with money. I haven't seen a championship building model that can last indefinitely without rebuilding, so it's probably a matter of when, not if. Having the 29th to 30th best farm system isn't going to help. Hopefully they get lucky with drafting and player development and resist the urge to trade which would help quite a bit. Of course you have to rebuild sometime but that’s not necessary now. People are concerns about the tax line in future years not having an old declining team. If you sign Ottavino and/or Kimbrel to 3 and 4 year deals respectively there’s a good chance that if you need to rebuild in 2 years you have 2 huge trade chips to get prospects for. We aren’t talking 5 + year deals for these guys.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 7, 2019 19:08:21 GMT -5
Jim is right, it's not just about money it's about the talent teams needs to prosper. I don't see them signing both players, it just doesn't make much sense. Why spend 14% of the team's payroll on a few wins? That's a lousy business model. It's high-risk and low reward.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 7, 2019 19:47:18 GMT -5
Jim is right, it's not just about money it's about the talent teams needs to prosper. I don't see them signing both players, it just doesn't make much sense. Why spend 14% of the team's payroll on a few wins? That's a lousy business model. It's high-risk and low reward. So we are taking WAR literally again? Also, you guys are subscribing to an artificial cap that doesn’t exist. More power to you but it’s not a real line. The Red Sox are in no danger of losing money - none. This is not the same as throwing bad money at bad contracts. If you want to argue Ottavino or Kimbrel are going to be overpaid on their contracts then fine just don’t give me the tax line nonsense. We are giving the team a BS excuse.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Jan 7, 2019 20:54:45 GMT -5
The reliever options are getting really slim. Kimbrell, Ottavino, Herrera, Allen and Holland. Clearly the pickings are getting really slim, as Ottavino is not a closer, more like a 7th inning guy. Herrera is coming off an injury and he likely will not be able to pitch until May/June. Allen lost the Indians' closer role last year as he was pretty bad and Holland is more of a 6th or 7th inning pitcher. The Red Sox may have to default to Kimbrell which is likely going to cost them more in terms of years and money than the likes of Robertson, Britton, Familia, Soria, etc. Brad Brach could be a good & significantly cheaper signing for 1 or 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jan 7, 2019 22:29:18 GMT -5
So we are taking WAR literally again? Also, you guys are subscribing to an artificial cap that doesn’t exist. More power to you but it’s not a real line. The Red Sox are in no danger of losing money - none. This is not the same as throwing bad money at bad contracts. If you want to argue Ottavino or Kimbrel are going to be overpaid on their contracts then fine just don’t give me the tax line nonsense. We are giving the team a BS excuse. Sure it's not a real line, but remember not that long ago when the Yankees were the evil empire for outspending the entire league by tens of millions of dollars? Part of being a Sox fan (right or wrong) has always been some sense of being an underdog. This is the only year in the last 20 where we led the league in payroll and we outspent the Nationals (#2) by about $35M. Maybe it's always been an overstated part of the Sox identity, but this is the only year we ever (as far back as Cot's baseball contract's data goes) outspent the Yankees and their spending habits have always (as long as I can remember) been part of why Red Sox nation has hated them. This isn't a small market club and I'm not advocating that they ever behave in that way, but picking up two closer-caliber relievers as many have advocated seems like a little overkill for a team spending $240M+ already and coming off of a 108 win season and a WS championship. It's like back in the day when the Yankees has 6 front line starters in one season. The competition in the AL this year sucked, not one playoff team had any real concern of not making the playoffs. Having 2-4 teams outspend everyone else by $50M or so and most everyone else tanking in some form or fashion doesn't make for a healthy league and the Sox leading the charge isn't where I'd like to see the team. I’d also argue that peak salary almost invariably occurs at the onset of decline, 28-32, meaning the return can be looked at as almost invariably declining with time. Using money alone (or worse, continues trades for veterans) strictly as a means to revamp a team means those big-spending teams push themselves to and past the point of no return. When the payroll is essentially stable (and onerously large), the team invariably enters a phase where players are both 1) essentially untradable due to their salary being underwater value-wise, and 2) into steady age-related irreversible decline. That means a large fixed payroll with a progressively worsening team, and a cost burden that impedes value-added young players from gaining valuable time and experience. That reduces the fan investment in the team, because players are less identifiable and lack the history and emotional attachment to fans (part of why i think those NY teams were widely despised...they were “corporate,” not “mom and pop.”). And so it goes back to the underdog issue, and the idea of a likeable team, which is what attracts fans. It’s not impossible (the 2013 team was this in some ways, although the names they added weren’t “stars,” and didn’t engender the same degree of resentment), but building a team that way is incredibly problematic, as 2014-2015 showed, both at the long-term organizational health level (though $ helps those rebounds, see both Bos and NY in recent years), and on the level of fan investment.
|
|
|