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 Guidas on Aug 19, 2021 18:32:14 GMT -5
I'm sure John Henry is hating having an excuse to spend less. If there's a lock out then this sport is just trying to die. Oh, and very likely goodbye Xander and Devers. A lot of teams will be trying to spend money while the Red Sox will need to shed salary. I doubt this 180 mil luxury tax even happens but even if it did why would the Red sox need to be shedding salary? They basically have Chris Sale signed long term and nobody else as or right now. Xander is signed as long as Sale I believe. He does have an opt out, but unless he exercises it he's on the books for $20M a year until 2025. Together they constitute $45M dollars, or just under 22% of the current $210M Lux tax cap until the end of 2025. If Devers wanted, say, a Mookiesque deal over 10 years, that would be an additional $30M-35M per year which means the Sox would have about 38% of their salary tied up in three guys until after 2025. That seems very anti-Bloomish at this point. Now, if MLB raised the cap to, say, $221 simply to account for the current 6% annual inflation rate* then these three guys would only take up about 36% of the total salary - still rather un-Bloomish, I'm guessing. *If, however, MLB actually for once decided to spread the benefits of increased revenue from the new TV and streaming deals to the players (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I know, but let's play along with this gentle fiction), they could raise the Lux cap 12-15% from its current mark, i.e. to between $235M and $241M. Under the latter number, Sale and Xander plus a theoretical $35M for Devers would only comprise 33% of the budget til the end of 2025, which Bloom maybe - maybe - swallows.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 19, 2021 18:53:45 GMT -5
I doubt this 180 mil luxury tax even happens but even if it did why would the Red sox need to be shedding salary? They basically have Chris Sale signed long term and nobody else as or right now. Xander is signed as long as Sale I believe. He does have an opt out, but unless he exercises it he's on the books for $20M a year until 2025. Together they constitute $45M dollars, or just under 22% of the current $210M Lux tax cap until the end of 2025. If Devers wanted, say, a Mookiesque deal over 10 years, that would be an additional $30M-35M per year which means the Sox would have about 38% of their salary tied up in three guys until after 2025. That seems very anti-Bloomish at this point. Now, if MLB raised the cap to, say, $221 simply to account for the current 6% annual inflation rate* then these three guys would only take up about 36% of the total salary - still rather un-Bloomish, I'm guessing. *If, however, MLB actually for once decided to spread the benefits of increased revenue from the new TV and streaming deals to the players (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I know, but let's play along with this gentle fiction), they could raise the Lux cap 12-15% from its current mark, i.e. to between $235M and $241M. Under the latter number, Sale and Xander plus a theoretical $35M for Devers would only comprise 33% of the budget til the end of 2025, which Bloom maybe - maybe - swallows. Xander is almost assured to take his opt out but once again why would they need to "shed" salary if this 180 mil was actually agreed to which it isn't likely to be.
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Aug 19, 2021 21:48:50 GMT -5
I doubt this 180 mil luxury tax even happens but even if it did why would the Red sox need to be shedding salary? They basically have Chris Sale signed long term and nobody else as or right now. Xander is signed as long as Sale I believe. He does have an opt out, but unless he exercises it he's on the books for $20M a year until 2025. Together they constitute $45M dollars, or just under 22% of the current $210M Lux tax cap until the end of 2025. If Devers wanted, say, a Mookiesque deal over 10 years, that would be an additional $30M-35M per year which means the Sox would have about 38% of their salary tied up in three guys until after 2025. That seems very anti-Bloomish at this point. Now, if MLB raised the cap to, say, $221 simply to account for the current 6% annual inflation rate* then these three guys would only take up about 36% of the total salary - still rather un-Bloomish, I'm guessing. *If, however, MLB actually for once decided to spread the benefits of increased revenue from the new TV and streaming deals to the players (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I know, but let's play along with this gentle fiction), they could raise the Lux cap 12-15% from its current mark, i.e. to between $235M and $241M. Under the latter number, Sale and Xander plus a theoretical $35M for Devers would only comprise 33% of the budget til the end of 2025, which Bloom maybe - maybe - swallows. Why do you think Bloom wouldn't do that? The Dodgers allocate 43% of their luxury tax line (36% of their luxury tax-accounted payroll) to three guys, not sure why the Sox would be expected to behave much differently, especially once (if) they've built up the player development machine and/or prove to be successful finding bargain bin guys consistently to fill out the rest of the roster (as the Dodgers have done).
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 24, 2021 21:14:06 GMT -5
Xander is signed as long as Sale I believe. He does have an opt out, but unless he exercises it he's on the books for $20M a year until 2025. Together they constitute $45M dollars, or just under 22% of the current $210M Lux tax cap until the end of 2025. If Devers wanted, say, a Mookiesque deal over 10 years, that would be an additional $30M-35M per year which means the Sox would have about 38% of their salary tied up in three guys until after 2025. That seems very anti-Bloomish at this point. Now, if MLB raised the cap to, say, $221 simply to account for the current 6% annual inflation rate* then these three guys would only take up about 36% of the total salary - still rather un-Bloomish, I'm guessing. *If, however, MLB actually for once decided to spread the benefits of increased revenue from the new TV and streaming deals to the players (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I know, but let's play along with this gentle fiction), they could raise the Lux cap 12-15% from its current mark, i.e. to between $235M and $241M. Under the latter number, Sale and Xander plus a theoretical $35M for Devers would only comprise 33% of the budget til the end of 2025, which Bloom maybe - maybe - swallows. Why do you think Bloom wouldn't do that? The Dodgers allocate 43% of their luxury tax line (36% of their luxury tax-accounted payroll) to three guys, not sure why the Sox would be expected to behave much differently, especially once (if) they've built up the player development machine and/or prove to be successful finding bargain bin guys consistently to fill out the rest of the roster (as the Dodgers have done). I think Bloom wants as much flexibility as he can get within reason, and my guess is he’d like to keep the luxury players below a certain level, and 35% seems like an outer limit on that, but just a guess based on the way dollars are allocated as a percentage of the total payroll in Tampa. Once he got near two players eating up more that 25% or so he’d trade one (or both) off.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Aug 25, 2021 4:52:07 GMT -5
I doubt this 180 mil luxury tax even happens but even if it did why would the Red sox need to be shedding salary? They basically have Chris Sale signed long term and nobody else as or right now. Xander is signed as long as Sale I believe. He does have an opt out, but unless he exercises it he's on the books for $20M a year until 2025. Together they constitute $45M dollars, or just under 22% of the current $210M Lux tax cap until the end of 2025. If Devers wanted, say, a Mookiesque deal over 10 years, that would be an additional $30M-35M per year which means the Sox would have about 38% of their salary tied up in three guys until after 2025. That seems very anti-Bloomish at this point. Now, if MLB raised the cap to, say, $221 simply to account for the current 6% annual inflation rate* then these three guys would only take up about 36% of the total salary - still rather un-Bloomish, I'm guessing. *If, however, MLB actually for once decided to spread the benefits of increased revenue from the new TV and streaming deals to the players (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I know, but let's play along with this gentle fiction), they could raise the Lux cap 12-15% from its current mark, i.e. to between $235M and $241M. Under the latter number, Sale and Xander plus a theoretical $35M for Devers would only comprise 33% of the budget til the end of 2025, which Bloom maybe - maybe - swallows. 1. It would take something historic for Xander to not opt out. 2. Anti-Bloomish ? their isn't any history of what Bloom is yet to have an expectation to what that is. 3. The CBA is going to lift caps a lot and or penalties will come down. 4. Of course the increased revenues will be shared, they always are based on percentages. 5. Of course these are just opinions/thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Aug 27, 2021 4:38:51 GMT -5
Just a thought on the upcoming negotiations and an area the players will be pushing for, length of control.
It would be a pretty big bargaining chip for the owners to give the players 1 less year of pre-arbitration control and 1 more year of arbitration. Keeps the team of overall control the same but gives the players a big opportunity for increased wages. Since I expect control to be a sticking point this is a meet in the middle type deal. It creates a situation where the owners could get something they want back in return.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Sept 2, 2021 14:02:12 GMT -5
nypost.com/2021/09/01/mlb-makes-new-service-time-proposal-to-players-union-sherman/Big fan of using age instead of service time. The incentives create a healthier environment. It's funny that this is framed as a concession by the owners. There is some age number where age vs service time is neutral in the zero sum competition between owners and players, but the shift is positive sum so each side should want to do it. I don't know what an appropriate age should be. One thing to note is that the best players tend to reach free agency younger. So the median age of free agents is higher than the age of the player the median free agent dollar is spent on.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Sept 2, 2021 14:55:09 GMT -5
nypost.com/2021/09/01/mlb-makes-new-service-time-proposal-to-players-union-sherman/Big fan of using age instead of service time. The incentives create a healthier environment. It's funny that this is framed as a concession by the owners. There is some age number where age vs service time is neutral in the zero sum competition between owners and players, but the shift is positive sum so each side should want to do it. I don't know what an appropriate age should be. One thing to note is that the best players tend to reach free agency younger. So the median age of free agents is higher than the age of the player the median free agent dollar is spent on. That age could really impact college players (depending on the cutoff). Most players who go to college don't make the majors by 23.5 years-of-age. I bet MLB would save quite a bit of money not having to negotiate with each arbitration eligible player. An agreed upon pool would be great on paper - but if revenue were to go down at some point (like a pandemic) the reaction from the players could get ugly.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Sept 2, 2021 15:29:59 GMT -5
I know they are outliers more than the rule but what happens with guys like acuna,Soto or our own rafi Devers who come up and would reach free agency around 26-27. Maybe I'm miss reading it but that sounds like its saying universal free agency for 29.5 year Olds and that's it. Also what about someone who is 29.4 years old? They get screwed for a year. I personally don't think age is the best way to decide who is a free agent and who isn't.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,492
|
Post by shagworthy on Sept 2, 2021 15:51:04 GMT -5
Just impose a salary cap at this point, I’ve had enough with the competitive balance BS. I don't want a salary cap or luxury tax, we shouldn't be penalizing teams who actually put a good product on the field regardless of their payroll. We should have an adjusted minimum that is tied to your record, so for example Tampa Bay is fine because they are fielding a competitive team, but Pittsburg is forced to spend up to 100 million to improve their product. That's the only way I agree to revenue sharing is if that is going back into the product on the field. We should be rewarding both types of teams/ownership groups. Groups willing to put their money where their mouth is, and teams that find cost controlled ways to win. I'm not mad at the A's and Rays of the world, I'm tired of the Pirates and Orioles type teams. We should also tie penalties into tanking, so if you need to restructure fine, but you get a one year pass to do so, and the subsequent year you have a 20% penalty on every dollar you didn't spend up to 100 million, and each year that esculates an additional 20% up to paying 100% tax on every dollar you don't spend.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,492
|
Post by shagworthy on Sept 2, 2021 15:52:35 GMT -5
Xander is signed as long as Sale I believe. He does have an opt out, but unless he exercises it he's on the books for $20M a year until 2025. Together they constitute $45M dollars, or just under 22% of the current $210M Lux tax cap until the end of 2025. If Devers wanted, say, a Mookiesque deal over 10 years, that would be an additional $30M-35M per year which means the Sox would have about 38% of their salary tied up in three guys until after 2025. That seems very anti-Bloomish at this point. Now, if MLB raised the cap to, say, $221 simply to account for the current 6% annual inflation rate* then these three guys would only take up about 36% of the total salary - still rather un-Bloomish, I'm guessing. *If, however, MLB actually for once decided to spread the benefits of increased revenue from the new TV and streaming deals to the players (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I know, but let's play along with this gentle fiction), they could raise the Lux cap 12-15% from its current mark, i.e. to between $235M and $241M. Under the latter number, Sale and Xander plus a theoretical $35M for Devers would only comprise 33% of the budget til the end of 2025, which Bloom maybe - maybe - swallows. Xander is almost assured to take his opt out but once again why would they need to "shed" salary if this 180 mil was actually agreed to which it isn't likely to be. He may opt out, but he's probably not going anywhere. No one is going to sign him as a primary SS with his defensive numbers, so unless he's willing to take a positional change elsewhere that he has resisted here, his market isn't as robust as he thinks it is.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,492
|
Post by shagworthy on Sept 2, 2021 15:54:46 GMT -5
I know they are outliers more than the rule but what happens with guys like acuna,Soto or our own rafi Devers who come up and would reach free agency around 26-27. Maybe I'm miss reading it but that sounds like its saying universal free agency for 29.5 year Olds and that's it. Also what about someone who is 29.4 years old? They get screwed for a year. I personally don't think age is the best way to decide who is a free agent and who isn't. FA should be tied to value of performance. That's the fairest way, teams shouldn't be able to get away with paying a Devers type player under a million for as long as they can before they even reach arbitration.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Sept 2, 2021 15:56:26 GMT -5
If Bogaerts has "resisted" a positional change, that implies that he's been asked to change positions, but I don't recall ever hearing that...?
I think he'll probably end up changing positions, either here or elsewhere, but there'd still be a market for him even as a LFer or whatever.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,492
|
Post by shagworthy on Sept 2, 2021 16:01:55 GMT -5
If Bogaerts has "resisted" a positional change, that implies that he's been asked to change positions, but I don't recall ever hearing that...? I think he'll probably end up changing positions, either here or elsewhere, but there'd still be a market for him even as a LFer or whatever. The Sox wanted him to play 3b early on in his career, and though he did, it impacted his offense greatly.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Sept 2, 2021 16:05:55 GMT -5
If Bogaerts has "resisted" a positional change, that implies that he's been asked to change positions, but I don't recall ever hearing that...? I think he'll probably end up changing positions, either here or elsewhere, but there'd still be a market for him even as a LFer or whatever. The Sox wanted him to play 3b early on in his career, and though he did, it impacted his offense greatly. He hasn't played 3rd base since 2014,that was basically his rookie year as he played 18 games in 2013. We can't point to that and say that's why his offense was impacted.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Sept 2, 2021 17:11:11 GMT -5
I know they are outliers more than the rule but what happens with guys like acuna,Soto or our own rafi Devers who come up and would reach free agency around 26-27. Maybe I'm miss reading it but that sounds like its saying universal free agency for 29.5 year Olds and that's it. Also what about someone who is 29.4 years old? They get screwed for a year. I personally don't think age is the best way to decide who is a free agent and who isn't. Yeah this is why the players will balk at it. It would have kept Betts from reaching free agency for THREE MORE years. Basically, it's the owners attempting to prevent the players who'd sign mega deals from being able to sign mega deals because there will be zero reason for a team to do it. If Tatis comes up at age 20, then he's under team control for 10 SEASONS. Unless MLB is going to come down on the age, I doubt it will happen.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Sept 2, 2021 17:18:56 GMT -5
The fact that it's coming up this early in the negotiations makes me think there could be something to it. If it gets negotiated down to 27 do players hate it as much?
The critical issue is that talented players are getting screwed by MLB in salary during their 25-27 years if they are good. Salaries just don't rise quick enough, although arbitration has gotten better.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Sept 2, 2021 17:21:38 GMT -5
I know they are outliers more than the rule but what happens with guys like acuna,Soto or our own rafi Devers who come up and would reach free agency around 26-27. Maybe I'm miss reading it but that sounds like its saying universal free agency for 29.5 year Olds and that's it. Also what about someone who is 29.4 years old? They get screwed for a year. I personally don't think age is the best way to decide who is a free agent and who isn't. FA should be tied to value of performance. That's the fairest way, teams shouldn't be able to get away with paying a Devers type player under a million for as long as they can before they even reach arbitration. There is a tradeoff for guaranteed contracts. They can't have pay for performance but ignore the issue at the other end that many players are getting paid a lot for poor performance. The issue is that the system pays players in their 30s and not their 20s. Albert Pujols doesn't care anymore that he was underpaid at age 21-25.
|
|
|
Post by julyanmorley on Sept 2, 2021 18:03:05 GMT -5
If they go by age, then some players will reach free agency sooner, and others later. There is some number where the MLBPA should feel good about the tradeoff, even though some members will lose out. 29.5 sounds too old to me, but there's an awful lot of Ryan Brasiers in the union who would love that change.
I think the NFL and NBA have had success in negotiations by taking a dollar from the stars and distributing sixty cents of it to the rank and file. Under Fehr, the union had a strong culture of resisting any move in that direction. We'll see how Tony Clark's union behaves.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Sept 2, 2021 18:13:35 GMT -5
With the revenues that MLB generated the past 5 years and didn't distribute to the players, I hope that they take a dollar and distribution 140 cents to the players.
If there's any period in time that the MLB should make some concessions to the players it's now when they have the excess profits.
But the owners likely won't, reducing profits reduces the valuation of the franchise. Steve Cohen didn't pay 2.4B to see the Mets drop back to 500 million.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,492
|
Post by shagworthy on Sept 2, 2021 18:30:47 GMT -5
FA should be tied to value of performance. That's the fairest way, teams shouldn't be able to get away with paying a Devers type player under a million for as long as they can before they even reach arbitration. There is a tradeoff for guaranteed contracts. They can't have pay for performance but ignore the issue at the other end that many players are getting paid a lot for poor performance. The issue is that the system pays players in their 30s and not their 20s. Albert Pujols doesn't care anymore that he was underpaid at age 21-25. In my dream world which I know is a fantasy, there is a base pay that every player gets based on experience and then arbitration annually based on performance for bonus pay. Then you truly avoid the Pujols's of the worlds. No more 10 year 400 million guaranteed contracts, reasonable guaranteed money with the opportunity to make more based on performance in the bonus arbitration at the end of the season. For example say for every year of service from 0-retirement = 1million dollars, first year guys make a million, 15 year guys make 15 million base, and then have the opportunity to make more based on their performance.
|
|
|
Post by cardsox on Sept 2, 2021 18:50:28 GMT -5
Well this base pay scenario would likely eliminate veteran players as utility guys,backup c, and bull pen guys. Vets love those guarenteed deals.
|
|
shagworthy
Veteran
My neckbeard game is on point.
Posts: 1,492
|
Post by shagworthy on Sept 2, 2021 19:51:46 GMT -5
Well this base pay scenario would likely eliminate veteran players as utility guys,backup c, and bull pen guys. Vets love those guarenteed deals. Oh I get that, you wouldn't have as many cagey veterans holding on and inflating payroll. Only the guys who could still perform relative to their pay would survive. So your Nelson Cruz's, Ortiz, Kershaws, Scherzers, etc would still be fine, and the trade off here is they would still make more money at the beginning of their career and wouldn't need the back end to bolster their value. I also think it could be further enhanced for all by some form of revenue sharing. The union gets x% a year based on the total revenue during the season for all teams, and each player (even rookies) get an even share of that revenue. Let's say a fair percentage is somewhere in the 20-25 range, and the average revenue is north of 3billion, but we'll use 3 billon as the number for roundness, that's 750 million distributed evenly throughout the rank and file on top of salaries. Which is around 600k each on top of their salary and bonus.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 2, 2021 20:17:40 GMT -5
nypost.com/2021/09/01/mlb-makes-new-service-time-proposal-to-players-union-sherman/Big fan of using age instead of service time. The incentives create a healthier environment. It's funny that this is framed as a concession by the owners. There is some age number where age vs service time is neutral in the zero sum competition between owners and players, but the shift is positive sum so each side should want to do it. I don't know what an appropriate age should be. One thing to note is that the best players tend to reach free agency younger. So the median age of free agents is higher than the age of the player the median free agent dollar is spent on. So guys who come up at age 20 who are the very best players are controlled for 9.5 years? WTF is that crap.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 6, 2021 23:47:03 GMT -5
I know they are outliers more than the rule but what happens with guys like acuna,Soto or our own rafi Devers who come up and would reach free agency around 26-27. Maybe I'm miss reading it but that sounds like its saying universal free agency for 29.5 year Olds and that's it. Also what about someone who is 29.4 years old? They get screwed for a year. I personally don't think age is the best way to decide who is a free agent and who isn't. Yeah this is why the players will balk at it. It would have kept Betts from reaching free agency for THREE MORE years. Basically, it's the owners attempting to prevent the players who'd sign mega deals from being able to sign mega deals because there will be zero reason for a team to do it. If Tatis comes up at age 20, then he's under team control for 10 SEASONS. Unless MLB is going to come down on the age, I doubt it will happen. The MLBPA did reject it as completely out of hand. It's nothing more than a lame attempt by the owners to extend the control they already have over pre-arb and arb players right to the point in the aging curve where performance drops off dramatically. This is courtesy of Fangraphs: In other words: " We'll maintain control of you in a way that will vastly underpay you through your most productive years". Good luck after that. If this is the way these negotiations are going to proceed it will be a disaster. What, a union counter-proposal that reduces arb years is next? This will be a slog.
|
|
|