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.
Notes/questions regarding CBA (and other) rules 2018
|
Post by Canseco on Nov 16, 2018 17:17:15 GMT -5
I’m not sure how I’ve remained ignorant on this topic (yes I am... I haven’t looked it up), but what are the new(ish) draft pick compensation rules for departing QO free agents? In which round would we be sitting if (when) Kimbrel goes elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 16, 2018 17:29:22 GMT -5
I’m not sure how I’ve remained ignorant on this topic (yes I am... I haven’t looked it up), but what are the new(ish) draft pick compensation rules for departing QO free agents? In which round would we be sitting if (when) Kimbrel goes elsewhere? After the 4th round, regardless of how big his contract is since they were in the penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 17, 2018 16:35:35 GMT -5
Put this in a new thread for reference. Will post some helpful stuff here.
Qualifying Offer Compensation * General rule: Compensation after Comp Round B (in pick 75-80 range) 2018: Houston (Keuchel), LA Dodgers (Grandal) * Exception 1: Team paid luxury tax = Compensation after fourth round (mid-100s) 2018: Boston (Kimbrel), Washington (Harper) * Exception 2: Team received revenue sharing AND free agent signed for more than $50 million = Compensation after the first round 2018: Arizona received revenue sharing and the Fangraphs projections have Pollack and Corbin signing for >$50M, so most likely Arizona's two picks fall here.
From the link in the post below:
Qualifying Offer Signing Penalties • A team that exceeded the luxury tax in the preceding season will lose its second- and fifth-highest selections in the following year's Draft, as well as $1 million from its international bonus pool for the upcoming signing period. If such a team signs multiple qualifying-offer free agents, it will forfeit its third- and sixth-highest remaining picks as well.
Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2019 Draft would lose its second- and fifth-round picks. A team with two first-round picks and one pick in each subsequent round would lose its second-highest first-round pick and its fourth-round pick.
2018: Boston, Washington
• A team that receives revenue sharing will lose its third-highest selection in the following year's Draft. If it signs two such players, it will also forfeit its fourth-highest remaining pick.
Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2019 Draft would lose its third-round pick. A team with two first-round picks and one pick in each subsequent round would lose its second-round pick.
2018: I haven't seen a list, but last year's list was Arizona, Atlanta, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Colorado, Houston, Kansas City, Miami, Milwaukee, Minnesota, Oakland, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Seattle, Tampa Bay
• A team that neither exceeded the luxury tax in the preceding season nor receives revenue sharing will lose its second-highest selection in the following year's Draft, as well as $500,000 from its international bonus pool for the upcoming signing period. If it signs two such players, it will also forfeit its third-highest remaining pick and an additional $500,000.
Examples: A team with one pick in each round of the 2019 Draft would lose its second-round pick. A team with two first-round picks would lose its second-highest first-round pick.
2018: If the above list is right, that leaves Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Detroit (although they weren't in the above group because they went over last year), LA Angels, LA Dodgers, NY Mets, NY Yankees, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Texas, Toronto
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on Nov 17, 2018 17:17:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 22, 2018 12:37:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 22, 2018 18:13:18 GMT -5
Has there been any clarification if the Sox actually went over the $237M mark or not? I know Cot's had them right over it, which would be a truly bizarre decision, so I have to think they they ended up sneaking just underneath it.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 22, 2018 18:15:07 GMT -5
Has there been any clarification if the Sox actually went over the $237M mark or not? I know Cot's had them right over it, which would be a truly bizarre decision, so I have to think they they ended up sneaking just underneath it. We won't truly know until the league releases that information. The league releases the tax bill every year, that's when we will know.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 22, 2018 20:08:23 GMT -5
Has there been any clarification if the Sox actually went over the $237M mark or not? I know Cot's had them right over it, which would be a truly bizarre decision, so I have to think they they ended up sneaking just underneath it. We won't truly know until the league releases that information. The league releases the tax bill every year, that's when we will know. Thanks. I haven't been as active on here as usual so I wasn't sure if I missed that
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 22, 2018 22:02:35 GMT -5
Has there been any clarification if the Sox actually went over the $237M mark or not? I know Cot's had them right over it, which would be a truly bizarre decision, so I have to think they they ended up sneaking just underneath it. Cot's figure has us over by 854,363, but their figure includes full seasons for Walden and Poyner but doesn't include Workman's $835K from arbitration. That beings you down to 237.6M.
It also includes 15 optioned players at $150,000 each, which seems to be a guess combining an average number of days recalled and getting the MLB minimum, and the remainder getting the AAA average of 60,000.
In fact, we averaged 8.5 guys on option. which is to say we had only 8.5 seasons of AAA salary to pay. Those guys (plus Brasier, Phillips, and Butler, who were never on option) combined for 2.31 MLB seasons. That's $1.77M instead of Cot's estimate of $2.25M, if all the MLB guys were at minimum and the AAA salary averaged $60K.
That brings you down to $237.12M.
We spent $683K on September callups, so it does seem impossible to believe that we just went over.
And in fact, the minimum AAA pay is way less than $60K -- $31K. If the Sox guys on option averaged $44K instead of $60K, we're under.
Those guys had an average of 1.3 years of experience at AAA and above, and that counts Marcus Walden as 2.6 when he went to the indie leagues in the middle. So it does seem credible that they were cheaper than average.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 22, 2018 22:41:00 GMT -5
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 23, 2018 9:00:34 GMT -5
Exactly. I'm not sure why it seems to be a question if they went over. Dombrowski would know and he made it pretty clear that they did.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,931
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 23, 2018 10:20:46 GMT -5
Exactly. I'm not sure why it seems to be a question if they went over. Dombrowski would know and he made it pretty clear that they did. He actually doesn't say that they're over. He says "it's pretty easy to calculate that we are over it" when, in fact, according to the best calculations, they weren't yet. Cot's showed them over it, and it was easy to look at their page and decide they were over it, but the Sox roster was unusual in that they had fewer guys on option that usual, because Maddox and Hernandez were on the MLB DL list for long chunks of time.
It's certainly possible that Cot's is way off with their benefits estimate, but it would have to be by $500K to $1M. Later he talks about deciding they were willing to go over if necessary and says "if that's the consequence of going over," when he could have said "since that's ...." His whole way of talking about seems a little strangely indirect.
We don't know how the question he was answering was phrased. If Nick Carfardo had asked "you're over the limit now, right?" I might have agreed with him. I wondered at the time whether he was just going along with the assumption that they were, half in the expectation that an August waiver deal would put them over and half because if it turns out you stayed under, that's a pleasant surprise.
We'll find out soon. If they are over and it's by less than about $500K, then it means that they weren't over until they called up the September guys.
I do think it's likelier that Cot's benefit number is way off and that we're over, but we definitely don't know that for sure. And as far as we can tell with the best information, they're just barely over, and that seems strange.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Nov 23, 2018 10:35:45 GMT -5
Did Vazquez AAV signing the extension when he did increase the payroll by $3ish Million? I’d hate to think we went over bc of that.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,665
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 23, 2018 10:56:01 GMT -5
Exactly. I'm not sure why it seems to be a question if they went over. Dombrowski would know and he made it pretty clear that they did. He actually doesn't say that they're over. He says "it's pretty easy to calculate that we are over it" when, in fact, according to the best calculations, they weren't yet. Cot's showed them over it, and it was easy to look at their page and decide they were over it, but the Sox roster was unusual in that they had fewer guys on option that usual, because Maddox and Hernandez were on the MLB DL list for long chunks of time.
It's certainly possible that Cot's is way off with their benefits estimate, but it would have to be by $500K to $1M. Later he talks about deciding they were willing to go over if necessary and says "if that's the consequence of going over," when he could have said "since that's ...." His whole way of talking about seems a little strangely indirect.
We don't know how the question he was answering was phrased. If Nick Carfardo had asked "you're over the limit now, right?" I might have agreed with him. I wondered at the time whether he was just going along with the assumption that they were, half in the expectation that an August waiver deal would put them over and half because if it turns out you stayed under, that's a pleasant surprise. We'll find out soon. If they are over and it's by less than about $500K, then it means that they weren't over until they called up the September guys. I do think it's likelier that Cot's benefit number is way off and that we're over, but we definitely don't know that for sure. And as far as we can tell with the best information, they're just barely over, and that seems strange.
Honestly, I can't imagine any possible difference in how Cafardo asked the question in which it would be answered that it's pretty easy to calculate that they're over that leaves any wiggle room to assume that Dombrowski doesn't think they're over. Dombrowski has to know if they're over or not. Divulging whether they are or not isn't some big strategy secret. You either are or you aren't. I would assume the Sox have the number crunchers there to know if they're truly over or not and that Dombrowski would know for certain. I take his answer to mean that it's pretty obvious that they are. Otherwise maybe he answers it's easy to calculate that we are over it - except we're not, which makes no logical sense whatsoever. He'd just flat out say no, we're under the limit. Again there's no competitive disadvantages to being transparent here. I'm sure they know in the commissioner's office if the Sox are over or under and if they're over they'll hit the Sox with their penalties.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 23, 2018 23:37:38 GMT -5
Everyone who matters (Sox FO, beat writers who are trustworthy on this sort of thing like Speier) talks about the fact the Sox went over as a certainty. No, MLB hasn't officially released that information yet, but there is no reason at this point to think or hope that they did not go over the $237M mark.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Nov 26, 2018 11:03:20 GMT -5
Also we get porked on our first rd pick. I think in a perfect world it would be 33. But because of the overage it’s gonna be 43. I think that’s what Bradford said.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 15, 2018 20:24:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 15, 2018 21:27:12 GMT -5
forum.soxprospects.com/thread/4611/gameday-thread-little-pomeranz-chavis?page=1Made a post about Pomeranz getting traded in July that would have given the Sox the room to get under. Would've saved 4 million. I got blasted for it like usual. It's kind of eye rolling that the difference between getting under was dfaing or trading Pomeranz's salary. The Sox don't always make the best decisions for their future. Pomeranz had nothing at that point in 2018. Either team morale or whatever prevented them from trading Pomeranz.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Dec 15, 2018 21:54:02 GMT -5
If you DFA him I believe his salary still counts. And I doubt anyone would have traded for the salary of a poorly performing free agent to be.
That said, I 100% agree with your overall point.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 15, 2018 21:56:23 GMT -5
If you DFA him I believe his salary still counts. And I doubt anyone would have traded for the salary of a poorly performing free agent to be. That said, I 100% agree with your overall point. He probably gets claimed if he gets DFA'D though. The Reds claimed Matt Harvey ealier in 2018 after being terrible with the Mets. He was owed more money than Pomeranz at the time too.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 15, 2018 22:57:09 GMT -5
If you DFA him I believe his salary still counts. And I doubt anyone would have traded for the salary of a poorly performing free agent to be. That said, I 100% agree with your overall point. He probably gets claimed if he gets DFA'D though. The Reds claimed Matt Harvey ealier in 2018 after being terrible with the Mets. He was owed more money than Pomeranz at the time too. Matt Harvey was a waiver trade. The Mets put him on waivers assuming someone would bite. The Reds did and they traded Mesoraco to complete the trade. That doesn't mean someone would have bitten on Pomeranz. www.mlb.com/news/mets-trade-matt-harvey-to-reds/c-275836472
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 15, 2018 23:13:29 GMT -5
He probably gets claimed if he gets DFA'D though. The Reds claimed Matt Harvey ealier in 2018 after being terrible with the Mets. He was owed more money than Pomeranz at the time too. Matt Harvey was a waiver trade. The Mets put him on waivers assuming someone would bite. The Reds did and they traded Mesoraco to complete the trade. That doesn't mean someone would have bitten on Pomeranz. www.mlb.com/news/mets-trade-matt-harvey-to-reds/c-275836472I think the chances of Pomeranz getting claimed is high after his 2017 season. Someone would probably gamble 4 million in order to get him back to form.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Dec 15, 2018 23:36:17 GMT -5
I think the chances of Pomeranz getting claimed is high after his 2017 season. Someone would probably gamble 4 million in order to get him back to form. That's speculative, I don't The Harvey and Pomeranz situation are two very different situations. In Harvey's case, the velocity had already begun to return when he was DFAes. Prior to that the Met's were shopping him (rumored because of club house issues that he was unhappy about losing his rotation slot) and there was interest. What the Mets did was a calculated gamble. The Sox weren't shopping Pomeranz. ADD: The Reds didn't eat salary, they sent back more salary with Mesoraco and ended up paying money to have the salaries balance.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 15, 2018 23:45:54 GMT -5
What does it really matter? It was a few million and our draft pick went back 10 spots. The extra depth was well worth it.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Dec 15, 2018 23:50:19 GMT -5
What does it really matter? It was a few million and our draft pick went back 10 spots. The extra depth was well worth it. An extra half million or 1 million in international signings for amateur players too.
|
|
|