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.
2019-20 Red Sox offseason
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 1, 2019 13:37:00 GMT -5
Can the Sox QO JDM if he opts out?
|
|
|
Post by marrcus on Oct 1, 2019 14:36:17 GMT -5
I think yes, but only if Arizona didn't previously which I don't think they did?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 1, 2019 14:41:39 GMT -5
I think yes, but only if Arizona didn't previously which I don't think they did? They couldn't have because he was traded there the same season. The Red Sox can offer it to him.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Oct 1, 2019 14:42:17 GMT -5
I think yes, but only if Arizona didn't previously which I don't think they did? Didn’t AZ get him mid-season, which nullifies a QO?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 1, 2019 14:47:09 GMT -5
I think yes, but only if Arizona didn't previously which I don't think they did? Didn’t AZ get him mid-season, which nullifies a QO? Yes, Arizona traded for him from Detroit during midseason 2017 and he would get a QO if he opts out.
|
|
|
Post by marrcus on Oct 1, 2019 14:55:48 GMT -5
Just the fact that they want JDM gone, probably means Boras won't be able to find an AL market for him.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 1, 2019 16:17:51 GMT -5
If this is relevant then why aren't they paying near that now and why didn't they continue?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 1, 2019 16:23:00 GMT -5
If this is relevant then why aren't they paying near that now and why didn't they continue? Because they can win their division by 20 games while staying under the cap. It was a long road for them to get to that point, not one slash-and-burn offseason. Same with the Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 1, 2019 17:13:26 GMT -5
If this is relevant then why aren't they paying near that now and why didn't they continue? Because they can win their division by 20 games while staying under the cap. It was a long road for them to get to that point, not one slash-and-burn offseason. Same with the Yankees. Sure-- this is why you don't pay $300m. That was my point. Henry is okay to try to get under the 1st threshold this 2020 season. As far as slash and burn one season. The Sox had 3 good seasons didn't they? And they've won a championship. I'll take what the Sox have done over the last 15 years over what the Yanks and Dodgers have done.
|
|
|
Post by kjkramer on Oct 1, 2019 22:19:00 GMT -5
All this talk about the Sox salary mess has me searching for a silver lining... and I found one.... The Yankees will be in Salary Cap hell in 2 years with no trades
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Oct 2, 2019 10:10:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 2, 2019 10:56:08 GMT -5
Has any other team stayed above the cap for the dreaded 3 years penalties? I think not but I could be wrong. If they said the hell with the penalties and went for it all again but came up short would their be finger pointing when the penalties made it harder to rebuild? It isn't just about the revenues it is about the penalties that hurt drafting and international money also. I think they can do what they are hoping it just comes down to Sale, Price and Evovoldi all turning it around and pitching to their potential. I think the Sox have enough young xstarter types who could develop into a good pen. And JDM leaves but we keep Mookie. I know it isn't ideal but you still have 3 of the best hitters in the league and a fighting chance that your staff will be good. Erod, Price, Sale and Eovoldi could be a very good 1 thru 4, I know their are question marks for sure but it will be costly to go in another direction. There is no international money penalty for just spending money. That is for signing QO free agents, not going over the luxury tax. It's your pick moves back ten spots. Signing a QO free agent is way worse than going over the highest bar of the luxury tax as you lose draft picks and international money. It seems to me that the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox wouldn't bother getting back under every 3 years if all it costs is 10 spots in the draft. I don't own a team but I did stay at Super 8 last night.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 2, 2019 11:33:05 GMT -5
Because they can win their division by 20 games while staying under the cap. It was a long road for them to get to that point, not one slash-and-burn offseason. Same with the Yankees. Sure-- this is why you don't pay $300m. That was my point. Henry is okay to try to get under the 1st threshold this 2020 season. As far as slash and burn one season. The Sox had 3 good seasons didn't they? And they've won a championship. I'll take what the Sox have done over the last 15 years over what the Yanks and Dodgers have done. No, that's why The Dodgers don't. It took the current front office many years to get them to this point. My problem isn't as much that the Red Sox want to get under the cap, it's that they're doing a terrible job of it. The Mookie situation is Jon Lester all over again, they made a couple of bad deals and now they're scared to make the a good one.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 2, 2019 11:56:03 GMT -5
There is no international money penalty for just spending money. That is for signing QO free agents, not going over the luxury tax. It's your pick moves back ten spots. Signing a QO free agent is way worse than going over the highest bar of the luxury tax as you lose draft picks and international money. It seems to me that the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox wouldn't bother getting back under every 3 years if all it costs is 10 spots in the draft. I don't own a team but I did stay at Super 8 last night. Look it up, last year Sox went over it cost them ten spots in the draft, zero international money as a penality. You should try a Holiday inn Express 😉!
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Oct 2, 2019 11:59:17 GMT -5
Couple quick adds regarding the off-season:
- I think Henry & Co are mostly posturing when it comes to getting under the tax this year, and I think it's entirely directed at JD and Mookie's agents. An inferior product and the bad PR that'd come from losing popular players is more costly to the long-term health of the business than simply paying them. Great long-term goal, but not all at once (as others here mention with LA, etc)
- The Mookie situation needs to have clarity ASAP, even more important than hiring a new GM. The current group is more than capable of acting on behalf of the organization when it comes to an offer for a franchise player. Ownership either wants him or not.
- I'd put a deadline on negotiations with Mookie for something like December 1, because everything else ties into it. Personally I'd like to see an immediate 10/350 offer or something like that and if that doesn't even get the conversation rolling, it might be time to deal him and pick it up when the bidding starts next off-season. I'd put the minimum acceptable return at 2 potential high-impact starting pitcher and/or OF prospects at or close to major-league ready.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 2, 2019 11:59:48 GMT -5
It seems to me that the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox wouldn't bother getting back under every 3 years if all it costs is 10 spots in the draft. I don't own a team but I did stay at Super 8 last night. Look it up, last year Sox went over it cost them ten spots in the draft, zero international money as a penality. You should try a Holiday inn Express 😉! And it's a good thing they didn't go over this year. They'd be drafting 27 instead of 17 and have more than a million less of a draft pool. That's a much harsher penalty than going from 33 to 43.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 2, 2019 12:16:07 GMT -5
Again, there is no international bonus cap penalty for going over a CBT threshold. You guys are thinking of the penalty for signing a QO free agent.
The Red Sox have suffered no such penalty to their IFA pool, not will they.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 2, 2019 12:22:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 2, 2019 12:41:31 GMT -5
I was thinking along the same lines as Speier mentioned. If given a choice between Betts, Sale, Price, and JDM and one must go, I'd select Price, even though the more logical answer might be JDM as he'd probably be easier to replace.
I'm not well versed in how they get the figure for the luxury tax calculation. I had thought it was average annual value, which for Price is $31 million/year so I was hoping they'd trade Price and subsidize half of his contract and then trade JBJ to save about $25 - $27 million.
Of course, you'd have to replace Price. Maybe JBJ can fetch a young back end starter, which basically replaces what Porcello was this year.
But that doesn't replace what Price had given the Red Sox in 2016 - 2018, so that's the hole, particularly when you don't know if Sale is healthy or what they're going to get out of Eovaldi.
I'm trying to convince myself that the reason I'd prefer Price is gone is not from a fan perspective, but I really do think he has had a lot of little things going on healthwise the past few years and they're starting to add up a bit. I keep thinking we'll see the guy in TB, Toronto, or Detroit, but we're not going to see that level, except thankfully in the 2018 World Series.
Sale is a guy who wants to be here and still has the capability of ace pitcher. Even last year, not even himself, he managed a 17 K game, a couple of immaculate innings, and a killer K/BB ratio. With him, it's if/when will he break down entirely, but if he is reasonably healthy, he's definitely an ace.
Now as far as Price goes, I'm not following as to how this work. Speier is saying the Red Sox would have the acquiring team pay for him in 2020 and the Sox would take over paying him again in 2021 and 2022? Is that even doable?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 2, 2019 13:04:32 GMT -5
Look it up, last year Sox went over it cost them ten spots in the draft, zero international money as a penality. You should try a Holiday inn Express 😉! And it's a good thing they didn't go over this year. They'd be drafting 27 instead of 17 and have more than a million less of a draft pool. That's a much harsher penalty than going from 33 to 43. Not really because the majority of the difference will go to the player at 17 who will get a lot more than the guy at 27 will. You pay both guys slot money, the true difference is that 10% overage which is a $100,000. So the big difference is the talent level and that just isn't huge in that range. It's a penalty, but it's not going to have some massive effect. Not with the way draft picks are such wildcards. The narrative that you can't build a good system because of this penalty is kinda crazy. It will make it slightly harder, yet drafting the right players and developing them is what still really matters.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 2, 2019 13:27:30 GMT -5
And it's a good thing they didn't go over this year. They'd be drafting 27 instead of 17 and have more than a million less of a draft pool. That's a much harsher penalty than going from 33 to 43. Not really because the majority of the difference will go to the player at 17 who will get a lot more than the guy at 27 will. You pay both guys slot money, the true difference is that 10% overage which is a $100,000. So the big difference is the talent level and that just isn't huge in that range. It's a penalty, but it's not going to have some massive effect. Not with the way draft picks are such wildcards. The narrative that you can't build a good system because of this penalty is kinda crazy. It will make it slightly harder, yet drafting the right players and developing them is what still really matters. Mostly agree with you here, particularly with regards to the bonus pool money specifically. I think there's a strong argument, though, that the talent gap between 17 and 27 is bigger than the gap between 33 and 43. Like, there's a good chance that the guy you want at 33 is still going to be there at 43. And if not, definitely the second or third choice. At 17, though? Unless you're particularly high on someone specific, that guy isn't there at #27, and you probably have him valued a good bit better than the best guy there at #27. The extra bonus pool money is cool, but the bigger play is there's probably going to be someone pretty good there at #17.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 2, 2019 14:31:31 GMT -5
It seems to me that the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox wouldn't bother getting back under every 3 years if all it costs is 10 spots in the draft. I don't own a team but I did stay at Super 8 last night. Look it up, last year Sox went over it cost them ten spots in the draft, zero international money as a penality. You should try a Holiday inn Express 😉! Thanks I got it, 10 spots and a million bucks which is somewhat balanced by the cost of a 17 vs a 27. Still seems to me that teams like those 3 would say to heck with it but they aren't. Which is basically why they stayed out of the JDM market.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 2, 2019 14:40:36 GMT -5
What I didn't get is why the Yankees went after Stanton instead of JDM.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 2, 2019 14:49:58 GMT -5
What I didn't get is why the Yankees went after Stanton instead of JDM. I wonder if the initial asking prices were so high on Martinez and they decided to just pull the trigger on the Stanton deal since they weren't giving up a whole lot. Like, I think there's a reasonable argument that Martinez for a 5/$100M commitment was a better buy than Stanton, but not for 7/$175M. Seems the rare case where Dombrowski was patient and waited out the league and the player he needed came to him.
|
|
|
Post by jbsox on Oct 2, 2019 14:58:43 GMT -5
I brought this up previously, although not exactly this way, but it didn’t get much traction for conversation. My idea was if the Sox ate a portion of Price and/or Eovaldi’s contract to the point of getting them under the 208 threshold for little back in return, or add sweeteners as this article suggests. I like the way this article suggests of doing it even better where the receiving team pays for 2020 salary, and we subsidize salary for the following 2 seasons. We would have an even bigger hole in our starting rotation, but maybe we can trade for a cost controlled SP, bargain hunt for a SP (similar strategy we employed with RP last season), maybe someone like Houck or Hart surprises, and we could enter the free agent market next offseason aimed for making a strong big for someone if we aren’t worried about resetting the tax again for a while. It’s a risk for sure next year with our SP, but it may position us better to keep both JD and Betts.
|
|
|