Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Tuesday, February 04, 2020

Not OK

Un-bleeping-acceptable.

It’s that simple.  The Boston Red Sox have traded a player who should be spending his whole career in Boston as a true homegrown superstar for a few baubles in hopes of competing in 2024 or something.

Oh who are we kidding?  They made this trade so John Henry could get himself a new ivory back scratcher.  This is not freakin’ OK and to pretend that it is is nonsense.  I have been a diehard Red Sox fan my whole life.  My favorite players have included Fred Lynn, Roger Clemens and Nomar Garciaparra all of whom were allowed to leave.  While I was outraged when each of those moves happened you could make a baseball case for each move.

It’s not official but There is no baseball case for moving Mookie.  If the Sox wanted to cut payroll they should never have offered a contract to Jackie Bradley and traded JD Martinez.  Or they could have traded David Price with quite literally no return and gotten contract relief that way.  This is just an insult.

I’m not sure what comes next.  I’m a diehard (like most people reading this I imagine) and I know I will continue to root for them.  It’s an addiction, I’m not going to be able to turn it off.  I hope in three years this piece looks ridiculous.

But it’s not OK.  It is not ####### OK.  For now I’m definitely cutting back on the number of games I’m going to and while I’m going to spring training I won’t be spending the same amount of money I spend.

As far as the deal itself it looks like Chaim Bloom seems to have done about as well as he could have here.  Assuming the reports are accurate Alex Verdugo is a really good acquisition so we can trade him in four years (sorry I’ll try and stop being ######).  By dealing both Betts and Price this year in theory the Sox will have the money to throw at Mookie if he’s a free agent next year but I’m not going to hold my breath.

Right now I feel for Verdugo and whoever else is in this deal.  They are likely to get a lot of heat and it is not their fault.  These players, whoever they are, are now ours and deserve our support.  John Henry? John Henry can #### himself.

I can’t remember the last time I was this pissed off at this team.

More to come once the details of this abomination are official.

Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: February 04, 2020 at 09:27 PM | 164 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Fancy Pants Handle on Altuve's Buzzer Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:10 AM (#5921899)
There's a financial aspect to every trade because teams have budgets.

Non-responsive.
   102. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:13 AM (#5921900)
I think this is a coherent take from our old friend MCoA, of twitter fame:
Michael Caley @MC_of_A
with this and not meeting Betts' 400m+ contract demands, the lesson is FSG runs a business here. They correctly see that winning and growing the value of the capital asset *is* business, but the team isn't a toy or a sportwashing vehicle, and they'll make money-driven decisions.

John Henry is rich enough that he could lose money hand over fist on both the Red Sox and LFC until the end of his days and never remotely have it affect his day to day life

he's choosing to run the teams as a business, he doesn't *have* to

but he's doing a pretty good job so


But get out of here with "baseball reasons" takes, come on.
   103. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:15 AM (#5921904)
ElRoy, you're deeply committed to the notion that ownership should not be spending any more than is absolutely necessary, a theme that plays out in every single transaction discussion that takes place here.
It's more that I disagree with the groupthink/ideology that seems to have developed here that players are entitled to massive contracts that vastly outstrip their production, and that, for example, Henry just should have paid Betts $35M a year through age 40 or whatever.

Trading a player before he leaves as a free agent is hardly novel. But you're right, I don't have any emotional stake in this, so I'll just shut up about it.
   104. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:16 AM (#5921905)
he's choosing to run the teams as a business, he doesn't *have* to

but he's doing a pretty good job so


If he has die hard Red Sox fans not wanting to watch his product next year, I'd argue this is a bad business decision. Maximizing this year's profits is not always good business.
   105. Darren Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:17 AM (#5921907)
Seeing how this all played out:

--I'm guessing that the falling out between Dombrowski and the ownership was that going in 2019, the owners decided they weren't going to be able to sign Betts so they signed off on Sale, with the idea that they'd cut back after 2019 (including possibly dealing Betts). Dombrowski at some point either disagreed at the time and went along, or eventually decided that he disagreed about cutting back after 2019. He wanted to go all in again in 2020 and they did not.

--I wonder if they retained Bradley because how it would look for a new GM coming in and immediately purging the team of all of its prominent African American players. ????
   106. Nasty Nate Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:19 AM (#5921909)
By the way you'll notice Pedro wasn't traded in 2004's preseason. ####....Ellsbury wasn't traded in 2013.
Yeah, this is why the trade is so stupid. Just play out the season, make a good offer, and if he leaves as a free agent so be it. Or if they are bad, trade him at midseason like Lester, and while the return is lower at least you gave yourself a good shot at winning. Or if they were hellbent on dipping under the tax threshold in this specific offseason, don't commit a ton of money to Sale or Eovaldi in the near past.
   107. Lassus Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:19 AM (#5921910)
If he has die hard Red Sox fans not wanting to watch his product next year, I'd argue this is a bad business decision.

If I didn't abhor twitter I'd follow the long-lost MCoA, who I miss. But I wonder if he's completely discounting other factors in this reaction. I don't remember him being quite so mercenary prior.
   108. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:20 AM (#5921912)
It's more that I disagree with the groupthink/ideology that seems to have developed here that players are entitled to massive contracts that vastly outstrip their production, and that, for example, Henry just should have paid Betts $35M a year through age 40 or whatever.

Trading a player before he leaves as a free agent is hardly novel. But you're right, I don't have any emotional stake in this, so I'll just shut up about it.

I would never tell you to shut up about anything except your love of arena rock.

On Betts, though, I think (as Darren and PF did previously) you are exaggerating the situation to make it sound more reasonable. There are no reports of him asking for a contract until he was 40 or a contract that vastly outstrips his production. The reported demand was totally in line with the Trout and Harper and Machado deals. He's better than two of those guys, not nearly as good as the other, but, conveniently for him, he's the one about to be a free agent, not them.
   109. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:22 AM (#5921913)
If I didn't abhor twitter I'd follow the long-lost MCoA, who I miss. But I wonder if he's completely discounting other factors in this reaction. I don't remember him being quite so mercenary prior.

No that's misreading him, he's outraged about the deal as any sane fan should be, he's just explaining what they're doing (mainly to soccer fans, who are his primary audience now).
   110. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:23 AM (#5921914)
There are no reports of him asking for a contract until he was 40 or a contract that vastly outstrips his production.
His counter offer of 12 years, $420M has been widely reported.
   111. Dale Sams Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:25 AM (#5921916)
From a group who said 'we need to get sexier' and then ditched Orsillo....this isn't a very sexy move.
   112. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:26 AM (#5921919)
His counter offer of 12 years, $420M has been widely reported.

He was 25 (or possibly 26) at the time.
   113. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:26 AM (#5921920)
The reported demand was totally in line with the Trout and Harper and Machado deals.
At least two of which are going to end up being terrible for the teams.
   114. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:28 AM (#5921922)
At least two of which are going to end up being terrible for the teams.

Maybe, that's not a certainty. And again, Betts is better than those two guys anyway.
   115. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:29 AM (#5921925)
He was 25 at the time.
Apparently it's not known whether the 12 years would have covered his two remaining arb years or kicked in after that. If it's the former, sub in "$35 million a year through age 38" instead of "age 40" in my post and my point stands.
   116. jmurph Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:31 AM (#5921926)
Zack Greinke makes 35 a year now. The salaries have grown!
   117. Lassus Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:32 AM (#5921928)
No that's misreading him, he's outraged about the deal as any sane fan should be, he's just explaining what they're doing (mainly to soccer fans, who are his primary audience now).

Ah, thanks.
   118. Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:32 AM (#5921929)
At least two of which are going to end up being terrible for the teams.


I doubt that heavily. There will definitely be bad years at the end of the deals but the net result is going to be overwhelmingly positive. If you want to pay a player only his worth then the Sox should offer Mookie an 8 year, $380 million deal which I suspect he would take in a heartbeat. You overpay the end to underpay the beginning.
   119. Dale Sams Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:34 AM (#5921930)
Just realized if Mookie gets hurt and has to rehab at the AA team....I can drive five miles to see him play.

What a ####### world.
   120. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:36 AM (#5921931)
You overpay the end to underpay the beginning.
Yes, this is what everyone always says, but "underpay" in relation to what? And the answer is always the $/WAR calculations that already have the overpaid decline phases baked in. So it's circular reasoning. But we've been through this before, no need to rehash the whole debate here.
   121. Darren Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:47 AM (#5921935)
Machado and Harper were free agents, not really comparable situations.
   122. Fancy Pants Handle on Altuve's Buzzer Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:50 AM (#5921939)
I expect the Harper deal to be a disaster, and said so at the time. But that is because I think he is a 3.5ish WAR player, who isn't in the class of players who should get the deal that he did. So I don't think it has much value as a comp for Betts.
   123. The Mighty Quintana Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:58 AM (#5921943)
As a Red Sox fan in LA, I see a lot of Verdugo. Since the Dodgers carry eight outfielders, he really never got a full-time role. But this guy can hit, field, and even run a little for a thick guy. I think he has the perfect swing for Fenway...maybe Fred Lynn-lite. 45 doubles, .300, 25 homers. I like him in left field, but he can cover right in Fenway while he's young and the speed is cromulent.
   124. Nasty Nate Posted: February 05, 2020 at 12:01 PM (#5921946)
I like him in left field, but he can cover right in Fenway while he's young and the speed is cromulent.
What about CF?
   125. The Mighty Quintana Posted: February 05, 2020 at 01:32 PM (#5921999)
CF seems like a stretch...Benintendi would have a slight edge in range.
   126. villageidiom Posted: February 05, 2020 at 01:33 PM (#5922000)
But get out of here with "baseball reasons" takes, come on.

You could have those takes in a different thread.
   127. PreservedFish Posted: February 05, 2020 at 01:38 PM (#5922002)
Sainted BTF member Dan Z echoes some of my thoughts on Twitter:

"Contract lengths count and money counts, like it or not.

Betts is a giant vat of awesomesauce made of tacos, sunshine dreams, and gossamer supermodels, but the value of any player in any contract situation is finite.

Now, the decision to trade Betts at *all* is the one to be critical about.

Once you've actually decided you're trading Betts, this is a perfectly reasonable package"
   128. Darren Posted: February 05, 2020 at 01:38 PM (#5922003)
There's a financial aspect to every trade because teams have budgets.


Non-responsive.


Really? Okay.

Here's an argument that ignores financials.

Projected by ZIPS, the Red Sox traded away 12.3 future WAR for 20.5 future WAR. This is despite the fact that the system assumes Verdugo will never top 500 PA and Graterol will be a full-time starter who never tops 118 IP.

It will make the Red Sox worse in 2020, but better in every year from 2021 through 2025.


If that's not enough, the Red Sox can now sign Yasiel Puig and Brock Holt, and trade for Robinson Cano, Brandon Belt, Jeff Samardjzia, Johnny Cueto, and maybe a few others to fill out this year's squad.
   129. karlmagnus Posted: February 05, 2020 at 01:51 PM (#5922009)
I agree with Darren; I like this deal.

WaR is inaccurate; it greatly overrates star fielders who play hitting-first positions (Beltre NOT a greater player than Manny). Also, given the cloud over 2018, one must at least discount Mookie's 2018 season. For those reasons, I was very much against a 10/400 (say) contract for Betts, which would have landed the team in deep doo-doo for most of its length. I always preferred Bogaerts to Betts; plays a much more difficult position (if Betts had stuck at 2B, it would be a different matter, but he didn't, and doesn't even play CF.)

Dombrowski did the Sale and Eovaldi deals, of which the Eovaldi one was a massive overpay; he was a bad idea in the first place and I cheered when he was canned.

Price had got to the "overpaid" end of his contract; he had value but is probably not a massive loss.

Sox are a little worse off for 2020 (but probably could only compete for a WC this year anyway, because the Yankees are stacked). They have hugely more surplus value/flexibility for 2021-4.
   130. Darren Posted: February 05, 2020 at 01:58 PM (#5922014)
Sorry VI, just saw your suggestion to move this talk to the other thread.

I agree with Darren; I like this deal.


I'm not sure I like it.
   131. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 05, 2020 at 02:26 PM (#5922025)
And he's offering no discount on his future contract to the team that is currently employing him.
Why should any player approaching free agency give a ‘discount’ to the billionaire who has already exploited him for the first six years of his MLB career? If anything, such players should get a ‘home town bonus’ for staying with the team that profited handsomely by underpaying them.
   132. Darren Posted: February 05, 2020 at 03:24 PM (#5922042)
Why should any player approaching free agency give a ‘discount’ to the billionaire who has already exploited him for the first six years of his MLB career? If anything, such players should get a ‘home town bonus’ for staying with the team that profited handsomely by underpaying them.


Yes, the scenario you're describing happens quite often, where as pre-free-agency players never sign discounted long-term deals. Please tell me more.
   133. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 05, 2020 at 04:19 PM (#5922063)
As should be obvious, it’s one thing to take into account that a player isn’t yet a free agent, quite another to expect to him to sign for even less beyond that to remain with a team that had previously underpaid him.
   134. villageidiom Posted: February 05, 2020 at 04:27 PM (#5922066)
Why should any player approaching free agency give a ‘discount’ to the billionaire who has already exploited him for the first six years of his MLB career?
Blaming the billionaire for what was collectively bargained is adorable.

That aside, giving a discount isn't about exploitation or the avenging thereof. It's about locking in several hundred million in future income now, before 2020 has a chance to impact that potential income. That has additional value to a player. Now, that value is often overblown from an objective view; it's rare that a player in their walk year has a Machado-on-Pedroia kind of injury. But everyone has their own personal level of risk aversion, so the intrinsic value to any given player will vary.
   135. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 05, 2020 at 05:00 PM (#5922080)
Blaming the billionaire for what was collectively bargained is adorable.
It’s collective bargaining that has prevented the owners from doing even more to suppress the cost of labor. In any event, a player like Betts should be worth more to his original team than others. All-time franchise greats don’t grow on trees - lots of marketing can done with those types. I remain mystified that the Red Sox didn’t try harder to sign him, or keep him in 2020 and see if they could sign him thereafter. Money is clearly the driver here, but I wonder if the Red Sox know the downside costs.
   136. puck Posted: February 05, 2020 at 05:59 PM (#5922096)
Is this only a money-saving decision or is also some variety of collusion?

Seems like the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and perhaps a few other teams could blow well past the luxury tax line (at least the one that doesn't lose you draft picks), but they seem to put a very high importance on not doing so regularly. Are they all "just business" or is part of the business some sort of real pressure from the commissioner's office. Not sure what that pressure could be (off the Christmas card list?), just trying to see why teams act like this.
   137. Darren Posted: February 05, 2020 at 06:54 PM (#5922108)
Seems like the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and perhaps a few other teams could blow well past the luxury tax line (at least the one that doesn't lose you draft picks), but they seem to put a very high importance on not doing so regularly.


All of those teams have blown past it at times. And all have gotten (or are trying to get) under at times, and there are some large financial advantages to this practice.
   138. J. Sosa Posted: February 05, 2020 at 07:19 PM (#5922111)
This trade is a good example of why I would be a bad GM. It hurts because it is Mookie instead of Crawford, but functionally I don’t see much of a difference in the trades. He was going to FA. Who knows what happens at that point. Getting out from under Price has a lot of value. Getting cheap labor has value. It sucks, but I get it. Honestly I have no interest in giving Mookie 400 million if I think about it rationally.

Henry ain’t no philanthropist but he has contributed to most of the best sports moments in my life so I am admittedly in the tank. One year of Betts. One year.

Losing Coutinho wasn’t super great either but ask me how I feel about using the money for Van Dijk and Alisson.

edit: Hey I agree with Karl! Except for the Eovaldi part. He deserved the contract given the circumstances. Call me a rube, but it was the moral thing to do. I still expect to see his arm boomerang off at the elbow.
   139. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:16 PM (#5922150)
Betts is a ~7 WAR player that has one year in which he's being paid like a ~4-5 WAR player. It's not a ton of value.


I don't understand this argument. Say you have a team with a 7 WAR player at every position, each paid like a 7 WAR player. I have a team with a 1 WAR player at every position, being paid like replacement players.

I offer to swap rosters. You .... leap at the offer?
   140. PreservedFish Posted: February 05, 2020 at 10:26 PM (#5922154)
I don't understand this argument. Say you have a team with a 7 WAR player at every position, each paid like a 7 WAR player. I have a team with a 1 WAR player at every position, being paid like replacement players.

I offer to swap rosters. You .... leap at the offer?


Do you really not understand it, or are you playing dense to make a point?
   141. villageidiom Posted: February 05, 2020 at 11:26 PM (#5922161)
Money is clearly the driver here, but I wonder if the Red Sox know the downside costs.
Your concern is noted.
Say you have a team with a 7 WAR player at every position, each paid like a 7 WAR player. I have a team with a 1 WAR player at every position, being paid like replacement players.

I offer to swap rosters. You .... leap at the offer?
Let's see. My team has 8 position players, 5 starting pitchers, and 8 relievers, each of them producing at a 7 WAR level. They're getting paid $56 million each, putting my payroll at $1.176 billion-with-a-b for those players alone. Five more on the roster at let's say $600k average, and I'm around $1.18 billion. I'm probably losing half a billion dollars. And great news! 7-WAR players don't sign one-year deals, so I will be paying each of them for a decade. I win 6 championships or so in that time - they'll all slide below 7 WAR somewhere in there as nobody stays at 7 WAR forever - at a loss of five billion dollars. Maybe more, if revenue drops as the players' performance slips. I'd be willing to swap with anyone.

But not you, because your team sucks. I can find one of 28 other teams that gives me a chance to win some championships and make money instead of hemorrhaging it. Good luck with your team; you seem pleased with it.
   142. Ron J Posted: February 06, 2020 at 09:44 AM (#5922208)
And now there are reports that the deal is being held up by concerns about Graterol's health.

Quoting from a TSN article.

But the Red Sox have expressed concerns after evaluating Graterol’s physical exams, and, according to Rosenthal, now view him as a potential reliever rather than a starter.

Supposedly they're asking for more now. No idea what. (Haven't seen Rosenthal's tweets, just a summary of them in a TSN article)

Verdugo's medical went well.
   143. dave h Posted: February 06, 2020 at 10:00 AM (#5922218)
If Henry can make cold, calculated business decisions, then I think I get to say that I'm not interested in the team when they tank a season. I just checked tickets for April in the upper bleachers - $33 without any fees, which means probably $40+ a ticket or >$200 to take my family, ignoring travel, parking, food, etc. My cold, calculated business decision is that I'm better off not caring about the team if they're going to treat it as a profit-maximizing business.

Also, the ticket page still has Mookie Betts prominently displayed. I understand why they haven't taken it down yet, but seriously they can f themselves.
   144. Darren Posted: February 06, 2020 at 10:04 AM (#5922220)
secondary market prices should be good this year, though.
   145. pikepredator Posted: February 06, 2020 at 10:20 AM (#5922227)
This deal definitely hurts a lot. That said, I don’t think the outsized emotional pain is commensurate with the negative impact on the team. This ownership group still has my confidence that they want to win. The reality is that Henry and Co knew this would generate significant backlash. And so I believe they have a plan. I guess I’m not to the point of expecting this team be a ‘WS or it’s a failure’ kind of team. I remember all too well all the years prior to 2004 when that was the attitude of Yankees fans. I still follow baseball for fun. What sucks most for me is that Mookie is tons of fun to watch. But of keeping him this year would’ve hamstrung the team in the following years ... rip off the bandaid.

And maybe, just maybe, this makes it easier for them to open the checkbook for Mookie next off season. Sure there are better ways we could’ve gotten under the threshold, but here we are. It’s upsetting, but ‘pitchers and catchers’ still excites me, as it has for four decades. A couple dumb moves don’t impact how I feel about baseball.
   146. Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: February 06, 2020 at 10:42 AM (#5922238)
Pike - I don't really think you're wrong about any of that. Like I said in the piece it seems like Bloom did about as well as could be hoped in this deal given the constraints. He's smart, the Sox ARE willing to spend money even if it's not how we want sometimes and they have a mediocre track record. This isn't a one hit wonder like the Marlins or the Yankees, they have four World Series titles this century. It's reasonable to expect them to be good over time. But man giving Mookie away hurts.
   147. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: February 06, 2020 at 01:37 PM (#5922333)
Alex Speier wrote an article in December arguing that there are cascading costs to being over the luxury tax threshold in 2020.

Here is What the Red Sox Would Face

(paywall)

Speier argues the cost would be huge over the next 10 years. There are revenue sharing rebates, dropping in the draft order, and loss of international signing bonuses to consider. My understanding of his argument is that the penalties will be tough to escape and the total cost would be huge. I read it quickly, but I didn't follow how the Red Sox couldn't reset in the next few years if the team didn't this year.
   148. pikepredator Posted: February 06, 2020 at 03:09 PM (#5922399)
Jose I am a fan of the pieces you've posted in the last couple of days. I think we are all coping in our own ways. Mine is to rationalize and minimize. I'm grateful for the people who are venting because I can vent vicariously through them without actually getting all hot and bothered, which is a mindset I try to avoid mostly because I don't like the way it feels.

Up until it happened I really didn't think it was going to happen. Denial and all that. Now I'm in the bargaining phase, it seems.
   149. Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: February 06, 2020 at 03:45 PM (#5922444)
Thanks Pike, that's very kind of you. I'll admit, I'm pretty pissed off but I know myself well enough to know I'm not going to bail on the Sox so I may as well dig in and figure out what I'll be watching this summer.
   150. Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: February 06, 2020 at 03:52 PM (#5922450)
I read it quickly, but I didn't follow how the Red Sox couldn't reset in the next few years if the team didn't this year.


This is my issue with it. Don't do anything this year then go into next season and re-sign Mookie. If he's at $40 average (which is probably high) then you effectively wipe out the savings you get from Castillo coming off the books. Then Martinez probably walks next year since his actual salary drops like 4-5 million so there is about $19 million, Bradley goes away, another $11 million and if you want to trade Price with two years rather than three it's probably a bit easier. That's probably a $10-15 million savings against the CBT. Obviously this is off the cuff thinking, there are raises (Benny, Devers), new players, etc....but I think if you go balls to the wall for one more go-round in 2020 with the group as is, then go to 2021, accept that JDM, Price and JBJ are gone but re-sign Mookie it gets a hell of a lot easier to sell "hey, here's why we had to get under that number for a year. We will try compete with Mookie, X, Devers, Sale, etc...and we are building for the future" becomes a MUCH easier selling point than trading Mookie.

Speier's piece seems to assume that this year is the only time to do it. I'm not sure why that is.
   151. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 06, 2020 at 03:58 PM (#5922456)
Speier argues the cost would be huge over the next 10 years. There are revenue sharing rebates, dropping in the draft order, and loss of international signing bonuses to consider. My understanding of his argument is that the penalties will be tough to escape and the total cost would be huge. I read it quickly, but I didn't follow how the Red Sox couldn't reset in the next few years if the team didn't this year.

The issue is that none of those severe penalties kick in unless you're over $248M. The Red Sox were nowhere close to that.

What are the penalties for exceeding the CBT?
For the most part, the penalties for exceeding the CBT are fine-based. A first-time exceeder has to pay a 20 percent fine on its overage; a two-time exceeder has to pay a 30 percent fine; beyond that it's a 50 percent fine. There are also surtaxes for exceeding by $20 million (12 percent); $40 million (42.5 percent); and repeating over $40 million (45 percent).

A team that goes more than $40 million over also has its highest draft pick moved down 10 spots provided it isn't picking in the top six. In those cases, which would seem to be rare, the team's second selection would be dropped 10 spots.

For a real-world example of how trifling the penalties are, the 2018 Boston Red Sox paid less than $12 million despite exceeding the CBT number by more than $40 million.


https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-luxury-tax-breaking-down-baseballs-competitive-balance-tax-and-how-it-affects-hot-stove-season/
   152. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 06, 2020 at 10:19 PM (#5922547)
Castillo coming off the books


Castillo is technically not on the books. He went through a loophole when he was sent to the minors and no one claimed him - the Sox still have to pay all his money, but it doesn't count towards their luxury tax (Allen Craig was another one FYI). That loophole has since been closed. It's the reason Castillo will never be brought up to the majors while on this contract, if the Sox call him up, he counts towards the cap.

Although now that the Sox don't have the best RF in the game, #### they may as well try Rusney again, they can afford it!
   153. Darren Posted: February 06, 2020 at 10:27 PM (#5922549)
For a real-world example of how trifling the penalties are, the 2018 Boston Red Sox paid less than $12 million despite exceeding the CBT number by more than $40 million.


They were over by $40 million but they did not "come close" to $248 million?

Okay, whatever. Just tell me about all the other teams that are happily going over repeatedly.
   154. Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:07 PM (#5922553)
152 - Don’t let the facts get in the way!
   155. Lowry Seasoning Salt Posted: February 06, 2020 at 11:36 PM (#5922557)
There are more penalties than those in the article Snapper linked. From an MLB Trade Rumors post this past November,

None of the three teams [Red Sox, Cubs, Yankees] came close to topping $246MM in payroll, at which point they’d not only have faced a bigger tax rate on further spending but also would’ve seen their top draft pick moved down the board ten spots. But the trio does still face some ongoing impact beyond the money owed. Inking a free agent who declined a qualifying offer will cost a bit more in compensation than it would have otherwise — specifically, $1MM in international amateur bonus pool spending capacity along with the team’s second and fifth-highest draft picks. The rules also suppress the level of compensation available to teams that lose QO’ed free agents after exceeding the luxury line, though none of these three clubs issued qualifying offers this offseason.

Three Teams Exceeded 2019 Luxury Tax Threshold

Edit: Boston ended up owing $13.4MM in 2019. Source: https://sports.yahoo.com/red-sox-must-pay-record-luxury-tax-bill-after-failing-to-make-postseason-052434689.html
   156. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 07, 2020 at 09:25 AM (#5922586)

They were over by $40 million but they did not "come close" to $248 million?

Okay, whatever. Just tell me about all the other teams that are happily going over repeatedly.


They were nowhere close this year. Trading Betts and Price does nothing about last year.
   157. Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: February 08, 2020 at 03:24 PM (#5922893)
The Twins have backed out of the deal. Don’t know what that means for the trade.
   158. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 08, 2020 at 03:49 PM (#5922896)
The Twins have backed out of the deal. Don’t know what that means for the trade.

Presumably the Red Sox will now ask LAD for an extra prospect. We'll see if they can agree.
   159. Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: February 08, 2020 at 04:50 PM (#5922905)
Why wouldn’t the Dodgers just say “fine, you take Maeda.” As a Sox fan I like that idea because he’s pretty good, the Sox owners should like it because he’s cheap and under club control for 4 more years, this seems easy enough.
   160. TJ Posted: February 08, 2020 at 05:18 PM (#5922907)
Why wouldn’t the Dodgers just say “fine, you take Maeda.” As a Sox fan I like that idea because he’s pretty good, the Sox owners should like it because he’s cheap and under club control for 4 more years, this seems easy enough.


I wondered that at the time of the trade as well- my guess is the Red Sox do not want to take on any noteworthy salary at all in this deal...
   161. Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: February 08, 2020 at 05:29 PM (#5922909)
I guess but it’s not like he’s really expensive. His base is $3.125 per year. He’s got a bunch of bonuses that quickly estimating look like they could bring the total to about $6 million a year but geez, that’s a good thing, it means he’s doing the job for you. No one is certain but the dude is an established and effective MLB pitcher.

FWIW Cot’s Contracts already lists him on the Twins.
   162. Jose Is Absurdly Chatty Posted: February 08, 2020 at 07:16 PM (#5922919)
RED SOX HAVE SIGNED OUTFIELDER Andrew Benintendi to a 2 year, $10 million deal.
   163. Darren Posted: February 08, 2020 at 08:37 PM (#5922924)
Yeah, I think the Red Sox are not keen on Maeda or the deal would have been done already.
   164. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 08, 2020 at 08:39 PM (#5922926)
Why wouldn’t the Dodgers just say “fine, you take Maeda.” As a Sox fan I like that idea because he’s pretty good, the Sox owners should like it because he’s cheap and under club control for 4 more years, this seems easy enough.
While the Twins certainly preferred Maeda over Graterol, Boston preferred the guy with the near-minimum salary. It’s a big change, and it may not make a lot of sense, but that’s the new reality.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5198 seconds
58 querie(s) executed