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.
2023 40-Man Roster Discussion
|
Post by julyanmorley on Jan 30, 2023 19:02:22 GMT -5
German had a lot of hype the first couple months of the season, but the bloom had come off a bit by the end of the year. 4.10 xFIP in AAA and a bad cup of coffee. I remember tempering people's expectations in the game threads right when he got called up. Still, I would rate him as a pretty solid 39th/40th guy to have on the 40 man and expect we'll add another PTBNL to our stockpile.
I think Kelly and Mills are quite safe.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 30, 2023 19:06:31 GMT -5
I'd much rather they kept German. He's a lot younger and I'd have love to seen him contribute and perhaps haunt the Yankees a bit in the way losing Whutlock totally haunted them in 2021.
|
|
|
Post by trhubbs on Jan 30, 2023 19:07:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Soxfansince1971 on Jan 30, 2023 20:01:59 GMT -5
I'd much rather they kept German. He's a lot younger and I'd have love to seen him contribute and perhaps haunt the Yankees a bit in the way losing Whutlock totally haunted them in 2021. Ort was a Rule 5 taken from the Yankees as well (minor league phase).
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 30, 2023 21:18:03 GMT -5
I'd much rather they kept German. He's a lot younger and I'd have love to seen him contribute and perhaps haunt the Yankees a bit in the way losing Whutlock totally haunted them in 2021. Ort was a Rule 5 taken from the Yankees as well (minor league phase). Good point. Guess Brasier should go instead.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 31, 2023 3:12:47 GMT -5
You DFA the guy on the cusp you expect the biggest return for.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 31, 2023 6:49:59 GMT -5
German for a quality PTBNL would work. German + another 40 man player for a middle infielder that's a fit and leaves cap space would make us a potential powerhouse (typical injury disclaimers here). It'll be interesting to see what Chaim has up his sleeves.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Jan 31, 2023 7:10:41 GMT -5
German had a lot of hype the first couple months of the season, but the bloom had come off a bit by the end of the year. 4.10 xFIP in AAA and a bad cup of coffee. I remember tempering people's expectations in the game threads right when he got called up. Still, I would rate him as a pretty solid 39th/40th guy to have on the 40 man and expect we'll add another PTBNL to our stockpile. I think Kelly and Mills are quite safe. The problem is that the Sox have quite a few 39th or 40th guys on this 40-man roster. Lots of depth. But would you miss at least 5 of these guys if they were DFAed tomorrow?
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 31, 2023 8:01:50 GMT -5
I don’t understand why we tendered Brasier when we’re trying to stay under the cap and he is a JAG at this point under team control for only one more year. Makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 31, 2023 8:43:48 GMT -5
I don’t understand why we tendered Brasier when we’re trying to stay under the cap and he is a JAG at this point under team control for only one more year. Makes no sense. I'm not sure what $2m has to do with staying under the cap. Question tendering Brasier all you want and I won't argue, but the salary really isn't a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 31, 2023 9:37:22 GMT -5
I don’t understand why we tendered Brasier when we’re trying to stay under the cap and he is a JAG at this point under team control for only one more year. Makes no sense. The projections the Sox and Bloom have on Brasier are probably pretty decent looking if I had to guess especially for just the 2M price tag. I'm not a big Brasier fan but his SABR #s were good according to a quick Fangraphs search. I don't really have much of an opinion either way on keeping or getting rid of Brasier but just saying I can understand why they kept him.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 31, 2023 11:16:11 GMT -5
I don’t understand why we tendered Brasier when we’re trying to stay under the cap and he is a JAG at this point under team control for only one more year. Makes no sense. I'm not sure what $2m has to do with staying under the cap. Question tendering Brasier all you want and I won't argue, but the salary really isn't a big deal. We were barely over the cap in 2018. That was pretty recent and a good example that every 2M or so counts. Especially if the Sox are trying to add another infielder. Obviously they won the World Series that year but they were clearly trying to stay under the cap then scrapped that plan. It makes more sense to reset and then go over without worrying too much, instead focusing on maximizing talent on the roster (with reasonable limitations of course). If the Sox had lost in those playoffs we may have been wondering why they were dancing around the salary cap then barely went over but not far enough.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 31, 2023 11:26:08 GMT -5
I'm not sure what $2m has to do with staying under the cap. Question tendering Brasier all you want and I won't argue, but the salary really isn't a big deal. We were barely over the cap in 2018. That was pretty recent and a good example that every 2M or so counts. Especially if the Sox are trying to add another infielder. Obviously they won the World Series that year but they were clearly trying to stay under the cap then scrapped that plan. It makes more sense to reset and then go over without worrying too much, instead focusing on maximizing talent on the roster (with reasonable limitations of course). If the Sox had lost in those playoffs we may have been wondering why they were dancing around the salary cap then barely went over but not far enough. What's the mystery here? They clearly think he'll be worth $2 million, which is reasonable given that it's an arb salary and those usually come at a discount. It's fine if you think he won't be worth $2 million, but it has nothing to do with the CBT, which they either will or will not stay under regardless of Brasier's very marginal salary.
I also happen to think he has positive trade value at that salary, so they might have tendered that contract in order to squeeze that trade value out of him.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 31, 2023 11:33:57 GMT -5
I'm not sure what $2m has to do with staying under the cap. Question tendering Brasier all you want and I won't argue, but the salary really isn't a big deal. We were barely over the cap in 2018. That was pretty recent and a good example that every 2M or so counts. Especially if the Sox are trying to add another infielder. Obviously they won the World Series that year but they were clearly trying to stay under the cap then scrapped that plan. It makes more sense to reset and then go over without worrying too much, instead focusing on maximizing talent on the roster (with reasonable limitations of course). If the Sox had lost in those playoffs we may have been wondering why they were dancing around the salary cap then barely went over but not far enough. The Red Sox went over the third CBT level in 2018. They were as far over as any team had ever gone over. Are you confusing 2018 with last year?? Last year they were barely over and I expected someone to chime in with that, to which I would respond that trading a single player in JDM would've gotten them under. But yeah, 2018 is not the example you're looking for!!
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 31, 2023 11:46:46 GMT -5
We were barely over the cap in 2018. That was pretty recent and a good example that every 2M or so counts. Especially if the Sox are trying to add another infielder. Obviously they won the World Series that year but they were clearly trying to stay under the cap then scrapped that plan. It makes more sense to reset and then go over without worrying too much, instead focusing on maximizing talent on the roster (with reasonable limitations of course). If the Sox had lost in those playoffs we may have been wondering why they were dancing around the salary cap then barely went over but not far enough. The Red Sox went over the third CBT level in 2018. They were as far over as any team had ever gone over. Are you confusing 2018 with last year?? Last year they were barely over and I expected someone to chime in with that, to which I would respond that trading a single player in JDM would've gotten them under. But yeah, 2018 is not the example you're looking for!! 2019 2017 Apparently a mythical year in my imagination is an example that jumps to mind for me, where IIRC they sort of did the math wrong and ended up barely over when they meant to get barely under. Not that I think having a $2M contract on the books was the issue, as you pointed out there are plenty of ways to get under in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Jan 31, 2023 12:00:28 GMT -5
The Red Sox went over the third CBT level in 2018. They were as far over as any team had ever gone over. Are you confusing 2018 with last year?? Last year they were barely over and I expected someone to chime in with that, to which I would respond that trading a single player in JDM would've gotten them under. But yeah, 2018 is not the example you're looking for!! 2019 is an example that jumps to mind for me, where IIRC they sort of did the math wrong and ended up barely over when they meant to get barely under. Not that I think having a $2M contract on the books was the issue, as you pointed out there are plenty of ways to get under in that situation. Am I crazy, or did they not blow by the tax by like $40m in 2019
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 31, 2023 12:10:39 GMT -5
2019 is an example that jumps to mind for me, where IIRC they sort of did the math wrong and ended up barely over when they meant to get barely under. Not that I think having a $2M contract on the books was the issue, as you pointed out there are plenty of ways to get under in that situation. Am I crazy, or did they not blow by the tax by like $40m in 2019 Yep, I think I was thinking of 2017.
|
|
|
Post by taiwansox on Jan 31, 2023 12:13:09 GMT -5
Anyone else think that they’re waiting for spring training to sign Andrus? The 40-man crunch is a huge limiter, but once Story goes on the 60-day, that’ll open up a spot for a new signing
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 31, 2023 12:20:46 GMT -5
Am I crazy, or did they not blow by the tax by like $40m in 2019 Yep, I think I was thinking of 2017. Nope. Still wrong. Why not look it up? Nobody can remember this stuff. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14ZWlkYJtyP4awaHQ5CEALWLkFuYjWy1Z5NbEYKrGsOk/edit#gid=1520401900Red Sox CBT History 2019: $13,414,561 tax on $243,653,717 payroll, $206M threshold, 30% rate, $12% surtax for amount above $226M. 2018: $11,951,091 tax on $239,481,745 payroll. $197M threshold, 20% rate, 32% surtax for amount above $217M, 62.5% surtax for amount above $237M. 2017: The Red Sox CBT payroll of $191,888,422 fell under the $195M tax threshold. 2016: $4,503,815 tax on CBT payroll of $204,012,716 with $189M threshold and 30 percent rate as a second-time payor. 2015: $1,835,925 tax on CBT payroll of $199,491,005 with a $189M threshold and 17.5% rate as first-time payor.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 31, 2023 12:26:01 GMT -5
But wait, what was the year where they accidentally went over the limit then? I definitely have it in my head that something like that happened. (Which is not to say it actually happened...)
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Jan 31, 2023 12:30:43 GMT -5
But wait, what was the year where they accidentally went over the limit then? I definitely have it in my head that something like that happened. (Which is not to say it actually happened...) I had thought the same as you but looking at the payroll #s none of those years are lining up with what I had thought. I thought that was one of the issues that ownership had with DD was going over the LT when for some reason the front office had thought they were going to come in under. Perhaps that was all a figment of my imagination..
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jan 31, 2023 12:30:59 GMT -5
Yep, I think I was thinking of 2017. Nope. Still wrong. Why not look it up? Nobody can remember this stuff. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14ZWlkYJtyP4awaHQ5CEALWLkFuYjWy1Z5NbEYKrGsOk/edit#gid=1520401900Red Sox CBT History 2019: $13,414,561 tax on $243,653,717 payroll, $206M threshold, 30% rate, $12% surtax for amount above $226M. 2018: $11,951,091 tax on $239,481,745 payroll. $197M threshold, 20% rate, 32% surtax for amount above $217M, 62.5% surtax for amount above $237M. 2017: The Red Sox CBT payroll of $191,888,422 fell under the $195M tax threshold. 2016: $4,503,815 tax on CBT payroll of $204,012,716 with $189M threshold and 30 percent rate as a second-time payor. 2015: $1,835,925 tax on CBT payroll of $199,491,005 with a $189M threshold and 17.5% rate as first-time payor. Here's an article saying they went over in 2017: www.sbnation.com/mlb/2017/11/14/16651638/luxury-tax-teams-yankees-dodgers-red-sox-cubs-tigers-giants I was pretty certain they did, I have the same strong recollection as others. But the payroll spreadsheets I've found disagree, and if they did go over in 2015 and 2016 they would have had to reset. Berenstein bears phenomena hitting me.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jan 31, 2023 12:41:27 GMT -5
Nope. Still wrong. Why not look it up? Nobody can remember this stuff. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14ZWlkYJtyP4awaHQ5CEALWLkFuYjWy1Z5NbEYKrGsOk/edit#gid=1520401900Red Sox CBT History 2019: $13,414,561 tax on $243,653,717 payroll, $206M threshold, 30% rate, $12% surtax for amount above $226M. 2018: $11,951,091 tax on $239,481,745 payroll. $197M threshold, 20% rate, 32% surtax for amount above $217M, 62.5% surtax for amount above $237M. 2017: The Red Sox CBT payroll of $191,888,422 fell under the $195M tax threshold. 2016: $4,503,815 tax on CBT payroll of $204,012,716 with $189M threshold and 30 percent rate as a second-time payor. 2015: $1,835,925 tax on CBT payroll of $199,491,005 with a $189M threshold and 17.5% rate as first-time payor. Here's an article saying they went over in 2017: www.sbnation.com/mlb/2017/11/14/16651638/luxury-tax-teams-yankees-dodgers-red-sox-cubs-tigers-giants I was pretty certain they did, I have the same strong recollection as others. But the payroll spreadsheets I've found disagree, and if they did go over in 2015 and 2016 they would have had to reset. Berenstein bears phenomena hitting me. Ha, I just had the exact same thought about the Berenstain bears thing...
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 31, 2023 14:39:38 GMT -5
We were barely over the cap in 2018. That was pretty recent and a good example that every 2M or so counts. Especially if the Sox are trying to add another infielder. Obviously they won the World Series that year but they were clearly trying to stay under the cap then scrapped that plan. It makes more sense to reset and then go over without worrying too much, instead focusing on maximizing talent on the roster (with reasonable limitations of course). If the Sox had lost in those playoffs we may have been wondering why they were dancing around the salary cap then barely went over but not far enough. The Red Sox went over the third CBT level in 2018. They were as far over as any team had ever gone over. Are you confusing 2018 with last year?? Last year they were barely over and I expected someone to chime in with that, to which I would respond that trading a single player in JDM would've gotten them under. But yeah, 2018 is not the example you're looking for!! I was thinking of 2018 but did not realize they went over the third CBT level. I thought it was the first threshold and then that had implications the following years when they needed to get under again. Thanks for the correction.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,981
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 31, 2023 14:42:20 GMT -5
Nope. Still wrong. Why not look it up? Nobody can remember this stuff. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14ZWlkYJtyP4awaHQ5CEALWLkFuYjWy1Z5NbEYKrGsOk/edit#gid=1520401900Red Sox CBT History 2019: $13,414,561 tax on $243,653,717 payroll, $206M threshold, 30% rate, $12% surtax for amount above $226M. 2018: $11,951,091 tax on $239,481,745 payroll. $197M threshold, 20% rate, 32% surtax for amount above $217M, 62.5% surtax for amount above $237M. 2017: The Red Sox CBT payroll of $191,888,422 fell under the $195M tax threshold. 2016: $4,503,815 tax on CBT payroll of $204,012,716 with $189M threshold and 30 percent rate as a second-time payor. 2015: $1,835,925 tax on CBT payroll of $199,491,005 with a $189M threshold and 17.5% rate as first-time payor. Here's an article saying they went over in 2017: www.sbnation.com/mlb/2017/11/14/16651638/luxury-tax-teams-yankees-dodgers-red-sox-cubs-tigers-giants I was pretty certain they did, I have the same strong recollection as others. But the payroll spreadsheets I've found disagree, and if they did go over in 2015 and 2016 they would have had to reset. Berenstein bears phenomena hitting me. Interesting. But the same day as that sbnation story, Alex Speier tweeted "It’s official: Red Sox stayed under the luxury tax threshold in 2017," and linked to his Globe story in which he said: "The Red Sox kept their payroll under the $195 million luxury tax threshold in 2017, according to a major league source." www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2017/11/14/the-red-sox-stayed-under-luxury-tax-threshold-but-was-worth/EpHLesxgSlStRJtR0rs57K/story.html?p1=Team_LeadArticle
|
|
|