2016 Payroll

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

I don't know the metrics, but Hanley has been looking better and better... and dare I say it?  Yes I will... BETTER than Manny ever did out there more recently (granted I've only seen about 3 games the past month)...
 
To me the only issues this team needs to address is:
 
First Base:  Travis Shaw isn't the answer.... if Hanley moves there... or Panda.... great.  I think Holt gives the option to start at 3rd and our outfield is covered next season.  If they don't.... then it's a problem.
 
SP:  Yeah.  Break the bank.  We need one of these guys hitting FA this offfseason.  I'm hoping with the glut of high end starters and the lack of high spending teams in on additional high costing starters, we might end up getting Hamel on a cheaper deal or signing Price for 5/125ds
 
BP:  I never got why they didn't resign Miller, but I get that there may have been a lack of trust since '14 was his only consistent year.  I have no idea what to do regarding the BP..... it's a mess

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Is JWH willing to do his own reset? There will be no Punto 2.0.
He may need to do his own market correction on this roster. Is he willing to eat that shit burger?

 
I guess people forget that Punto 1.0 came a year and a half into the Crawford/Gonzalez deals, not three months.  They're not going to try to reset because of a couple off months.  They just aren't.  That's Steinbrenner-esque knee-jerk fire-the-manager-every-year type shit.  Besides, just because they managed to do it once, doesn't mean there's a magical Punto 2.0 trade out there to "reset" again.
 
 

THANK YOU. The issue isn't that they signed one guy or the other - it was that they signed both when they already had (in theory) too many bats. Signing either one on their own to fill the hole at 3B would have been defensible. Signing both was overkill and I haven't heard a good reason for it yet other than "Hanley wanted to play here."

 
Huh?  The offense in 2014 was horrendous.  Bogaerts was down (but expecting a rebound was reasonable).  Ortiz, Pedroia and Napoli weren't spectacular and getting older.  Center field and catcher were question marks.  Holt had a good year but tailed off so expectations were tempered. Plenty of reasons not to count on too much from Victorino (health), Betts (youth) or Castillo (unknown). While you could debate only signing one or the other, there's no way that you argue against both because they already had "too many bats". 

 

[CoolPapaBellhorn]

 Huh?  The offense in 2014 was horrendous.  Bogaerts was down (but expecting a rebound was reasonable).  Ortiz, Pedroia and Napoli weren't spectacular and getting older.  Center field and catcher were question marks.  Holt had a good year but tailed off so expectations were tempered. Plenty of reasons not to count on too much from Victorino (health), Betts (youth) or Castillo (unknown). While you could debate only signing one or the other, there's no way that you argue against both because they already had "too many bats". 

I probably could have worded it better, but they had too many bodies on the roster, specifically in the OF, which was where they tried to shoehorn Hanley. There was definitely downside risk with most if not all of them, as you said, so adding another proven piece made sense to some degree, but they didn't need another ~$90m commitment to do it.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I probably could have worded it better, but they had too many bodies on the roster, specifically in the OF, which was where they tried to shoehorn Hanley. There was definitely downside risk with most if not all of them, as you said, so adding another proven piece made sense to some degree, but they didn't need another ~$90m commitment to do it.

 
Fair enough.  But the "shoehorning" was really only for a year.  After which Victorino is out of the picture and if he amounted to anything, Craig could move to 1B full time (because Napoli would be gone).  Given that three of the other OF options at the time had minor league options (Betts, JBJ, Castillo), I think it was a reasonable investment to get a bat the caliber of Ramirez's.  Particular since he might only be a temporary outfielder with a move to DH in his future.
 
Can't really look at the deal just through the lens of how it plays/played out strictly in 2015.  It's a five year deal for a guy who wasn't going to be available to them this winter.

 

[AB in DC]

What's his OPS since he stopped switch hitting?

 
Per Fangraphs, Sandoval has .803 OPS vs RHP for the year, and .657 OPS vs. LHPs since he stopped switch-hitting.
 
For what it's worth, he hasn't committed an error since June 20, either. His fielding percentage is now a hair above his 2013 performance -- poor, but not off-the-charts bad.
 
Personally, I was rooting for them to sign Chase Headley, but he's been undeniably worse.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

I probably could have worded it better, but they had too many bodies on the roster, specifically in the OF, which was where they tried to shoehorn Hanley. There was definitely downside risk with most if not all of them, as you said, so adding another proven piece made sense to some degree, but they didn't need another ~$90m commitment to do it.

 
And at the time of the signing, they still had Cespedes also. In all likelihood they had already decided to move on from him, but what if they had kept him and put Hanley at third? They'd be overwhelmingly right-handed, but Yoenis is having a typical Yoenis season in Detroit right now which would be an improvement over Sandoval, Hanley probably doesn't mess up his shoulder and therefore doesn't have such a tough May, they don't have Porcello throwing terrible innings for them, and maybe they use the Sandoval money to sign James Shields who, granted, hasn't been great for the Padres, but would have been an improvement over at least three of the starters the Red Sox have used this year. Obviously this is all hindsight and not productive discussion, so I'm not sure what my point is.

 

[MuzzyField]

There is plenty to like about the middle of the diamond, not counting the mound, heading into 2016.  
 
The farm has successfully replaced a third of the order, arguably at the most important defensive positions on the field.  Factor in DP's team-friendly deal and this part of the roster is a bargain.  I'm counting on two healthy homegrown catchers in 2016.  I don't see the rest of the order being dominant enough to not want/need Blake and his bat potential on the field.
 
Elsewhere, there are so many expensive question marks, particularly when it comes to pitching.  How many starting pitchers will they need to acquire? Oh, and the pen needs a serious rebuild.  
 
Other than maybe adding a first baseman the rest of the pieces are already here and will be for the foreseeable future.
 
Leave Panda at third and the DH in waiting in LF. There is no way Hanley needs to be moved to a position that greatly increases his defensive responsibilities.  Horseface demonstrated how valuable a competent glove at 1B can be when he saved the day with a pair of picks.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
And at the time of the signing, they still had Cespedes also. In all likelihood they had already decided to move on from him, but what if they had kept him and put Hanley at third? They'd be overwhelmingly right-handed, but Yoenis is having a typical Yoenis season in Detroit right now which would be an improvement over Sandoval, Hanley probably doesn't mess up his shoulder and therefore doesn't have such a tough May, they don't have Porcello throwing terrible innings for them, and maybe they use the Sandoval money to sign James Shields who, granted, hasn't been great for the Padres, but would have been an improvement over at least three of the starters the Red Sox have used this year. Obviously this is all hindsight and not productive discussion, so I'm not sure what my point is.

Keep in mind that Cespedes was almost certainly gone after this season had he stayed with Boston, and the Sox would not be able to receive any draft pick compensation.  

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Keep in mind that Cespedes was almost certainly gone after this season had he stayed with Boston, and the Sox would not be able to receive any draft pick compensation.  

 
I personally don't think that alone is enough of a reason to justify trading him, even though I liked the trade at the time. They could have just as easily ridden out the year with him and re-evaluated outfield options during the offseason (which they probably will have to do anyway). Would have been nice to get the extra draft pick, but it's hard to pine after what was never theirs to begin with. That said, I know there were reports of him not getting along with some Boston coaches, so there was probably more going on there than we knew about. 

 

[Pilgrim]

 
All true, but kinda makes you wonder why they acquired him in the first place. In didn't take very long for the Sox to decide that they weren't interested (or were unable) in having Cespedes around long term. Why?

Because he wasn't interested in signing an extension and couldn't be used in RF

 

[grimshaw]

Right handed power was all the off-season rage.  They were probably hoping for some team to overpay for him if they weren't able to keep him.

 

[Rovin Romine]

There is plenty to like about the middle of the diamond, not counting the mound, heading into 2016.  
 
The farm has successfully replaced a third of the order, arguably at the most important defensive positions on the field.  Factor in DP's team-friendly deal and this part of the roster is a bargain.  I'm counting on two healthy homegrown catchers in 2016.  I don't see the rest of the order being dominant enough to not want/need Blake and his bat potential on the field.
 
Elsewhere, there are so many expensive question marks, particularly when it comes to pitching.  How many starting pitchers will they need to acquire? Oh, and the pen needs a serious rebuild.  
 
Other than maybe adding a first baseman the rest of the pieces are already here and will be for the foreseeable future.
 
Leave Panda at third and the DH in waiting in LF. There is no way Hanley needs to be moved to a position that greatly increases his defensive responsibilities.  Horseface demonstrated how valuable a competent glove at 1B can be when he saved the day with a pair of picks.

 
If they're not going to make a run at it this year, they'll have another half season of data on:
Castillo/JBJ - OF
Craig/Shaw -1B
Owens/Johnson/Wright - SP
 
 
Cecchini kind of fell off the map.  
 
Other than the bullpen, I think they'll be in pretty good shape.  (Assuming Buchholz returns and Xander and Betts even mildly progress.) 
 
Here's a list of 2015-16 FAs. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/09/2016-mlb-free-agents.html

 

[MikeM]

 
All true, but kinda makes you wonder why they acquired him in the first place. In didn't take very long for the Sox to decide that they weren't interested (or were unable) in having Cespedes around long term. Why?

 
My guess is that they viewed Hanley as the better offense player, for a team who was in fairly desperate need of more offense. I mean beyond dinging him for his current OBP and the perception that "he doesn't get on base at an acceptable rate", Hanley's 3 year split coming into this season was .356. Cespedes was at .316. One there looks a lot more acceptable then the other imo. 
 
As far as his defense this year goes, i'm left wondering how much of the standing "unplayable" evaluation is still being heavily influenced by early season blunders and questionable SSS data? Legitimately asking there too, as somebody who doesn't get to watch nearly the amount of live plays i'd like. Does the notion that we would have more wins had we swapped him with a replacement level scrub, while likely bumping Napoli/Panda up a slot in the lineup for the year, really pass the eye and smell test there?
 
On top of that let's play the hypothetical game that sees Hanley playing out a one year contract atm. Where hits his projected 35HR/800+ OPS here, walks in free agency, and goes on to get his money somewhere else (which he would). So outside a bunch of wishful thinking surrounding Allen Craig and a Bradley/Betts/Castillo outfield that's actually going to hit enough to be realistically viable....what's the rebound year plan of attack then? Where is the playoff caliber team offense going to come from next season? Unless one is buying really heavily into the immediate progression potential of Betts/Xander, we arguably already need another bat to better balance our lineup now with Hanley. Is our pitching really going to improve enough between now and next spring where none of this really matters? 
 
IDK, the bottom line to me is that Hanley's contract still looks to play optimistically well with what we currently need going forward. Whether it's part time DH spelling Ortiz next year or a full time move to first, i don't see him playing out to be the big problem many are making him out to be atm. There's a fit for Hanley in 2016's turn it around season. 

 

[jscola85]

It's less the blunders to me with Hanley but the remarkable amount of tentativeness.  Unless a ball is a lazy fly or hit within a ~5 foot circle of where he set up, there's basically zero chance he's catching it.  Part of that is slow reaction, part of it seems to be uneasiness in tracking balls on the run, and a big part seems to be fear of running into something (perhaps due to his injury doing just that earlier this year).
 
Statistically, his defense hasn't really turned it around in a material way.  At the end of May, his UZR/150 was a ridiculous -44.  Today it stands at -36.  I am guessing whatever "improvement" that shows is basically some mean reversion.  By my eye test and statistically he's still a complete disaster out there.  He's basically Manny's statuesque range without Manny's decent arm and surprisingly competent ability to play the Monster.  Matt Kemp (2010, 2014), Dexter Fowler (2014) Jermaine Dye (2009), Adam Dunn (2008) and Brad Hawpe (2008) are the only guys in the last seven years to have a UZR/150 of -25 or worse.  When you're in post-broken-leg Jermaine Dye and Adam Dunn territory, you know you need to resolve the issue ASAP.

 

[The X Man Cometh]

 
All true, but kinda makes you wonder why they acquired him in the first place. In didn't take very long for the Sox to decide that they weren't interested (or were unable) in having Cespedes around long term. Why?

 
He didn't want to play in right field. They saw him as a RF and felt his offense wasn't good enough to justify being in LF, where you can park anyone and they'll be fine.

 

[jscola85]

 
He didn't want to play in right field. They saw him as a RF and felt his offense wasn't good enough to justify being in LF, where you can park anyone and they'll be fine.

 
Anyone except Hanley Ramirez, apparently.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

Anyone except Hanley Ramirez, apparently.

 
How quickly we forget Kevin Youkilis's adventures in LF.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Figured I'd bump this, since there's discussion of payroll in a bunch of other threads.

 

[WenZink]

A few weeks ago, Alex Speier had a good breakdown of the Sox 2016 salary commitments.  He had the total (assuming they pick up Buchholz' option) pegged at around $170 - $175 million.  It seems pretty inflexible to me, with most of the Sox large contracts being tough to move (without taking back another bad contract) or, in the case of Papi and Pedroia, no-trade protection.  Outside of what we've already seen this year, the Sox have no projectable impact players coming up from the system until at least the end of 2017.  Shaw does have two years of options left, so hes a potential piece of the I-95 shuttle, as are Barnes, Johnson, and Owens, if they don't win spots outright.
 
This is a team that has question marks from 1-12 in their pitching, given that Koji will be 41 next April, and Tazawa is a good(?) setup man, but hardly in the class of a Betances or Wade Davis.  There's not a whole lot of room to buy/trade for big-contract pitchers, unless the Sox want to blow away the payroll to an unprecedented level.  But adding to the rotation, more 2nd or 3rd tier pitchers who would also be "question marks," doesn't make a lot of sense.
 
I don't see Henry giving Dombrowski a blank check in terms of payroll expansion.  I do expect that DD will be given the ability to trade any of the young players (on both the mlb roster and in the system).as long as it brings back cost-controlled players.

 

[jscola85]

Any attempts to retool the roster basically circle right back with what to do about Hanley and Sandoval.  Those are the two guys that DD needs to diligence and evaluate how/where/if they fit this roster.  The ownership group has stated the failures of the 2015 team are as much their own fault as anyone else's in the organization - if they really mean that, and DD tells them that a guy like Ramirez or Sandoval must go to fix the team, then Henry and co. have to put their money where their mouth is and likely eat some serious cash to free up payroll and roster space in a trade.

 

[WenZink]

Any attempts to retool the roster basically circle right back with what to do about Hanley and Sandoval.  Those are the two guys that DD needs to diligence and evaluate how/where/if they fit this roster.  The ownership group has stated the failures of the 2015 team are as much their own fault as anyone else's in the organization - if they really mean that, and DD tells them that a guy like Ramirez or Sandoval must go to fix the team, then Henry and co. have to put their money where their mouth is and likely eat some serious cash to free up payroll and roster space in a trade.

 
Eating serious cash doesn't free up payroll.  You still have to pay the money and it still counts against the cap.  Not to mention you still have to pay for replacements.  Selling low on Sandoval makes little sense, since he's not blocking anyone in the system and he's at the very least, a serviceable 3rd baseman.  And moving Hanely and subsidizing 50-60% of his remaining salary, is so unappealing, that they Sox can always wait and see what happens.  The salary-eating option will always be available -- it can't get much worse.  Hanley is not a Carl Everett where you have to get him out of the clubhouse.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
Eating serious cash doesn't free up payroll.  You still have to pay the money and it still counts against the cap.  Not to mention you still have to pay for replacements.  Selling low on Sandoval makes little sense, since he's not blocking anyone in the system and he's at the very least, a serviceable 3rd baseman.  And moving Hanely and subsidizing 50-60% of his remaining salary, is so unappealing, that they Sox can always wait and see what happens.  The salary-eating option will always be available -- it can't get much worse.  Hanley is not a Carl Everett where you have to get him out of the clubhouse.

 
If you get someone to take on 50% of Hanley's salary and replace him in the lineup with Bradley how is that not freeing up payroll?

 

[jscola85]

 
Eating serious cash doesn't free up payroll.  You still have to pay the money and it still counts against the cap.  Not to mention you still have to pay for replacements.  Selling low on Sandoval makes little sense, since he's not blocking anyone in the system and he's at the very least, a serviceable 3rd baseman.  And moving Hanely and subsidizing 50-60% of his remaining salary, is so unappealing, that they Sox can always wait and see what happens.  The salary-eating option will always be available -- it can't get much worse.  Hanley is not a Carl Everett where you have to get him out of the clubhouse.

 
Actually, it does free up payroll.  If the Red Sox eat $5M/yr of Hanley's deal, that would make it more palatable to offload the rest for some piece of minor value, thus freeing up the other ~$17M/yr to spend elsewhere.  If the org believes Hanley has minimal value for the roster going forward, eating $5M to spend $17M somewhere else on the roster would be a lot better than just sitting with Hanley's $22M/yr on the books.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

Yeah, so to repeat the points I've been making on the other thread, with some more detail:
 
1) Any conversation about what our payroll should be has to start with our current revenues, and 2014 our revenues were $370m, third in baseball and $33m short of the Dodgers at $403. The Dodgers, of course, had a payroll of $271m against the Red Sox $184.
 
Here's a chart comparing Red Sox payroll and revenues from 2002 to 2014:
 
 

Red Sox payroll v. revenues

Revenue	Payroll	%
2002	171	110	64.33%
2003	190	104	54.74%
2004	201	130	64.68%
2005	206	116	56.31%
2006	234	137	58.55%
2007	263	155	58.94%
2008	269	147	54.65%
2009	266	140	52.63%
2010	272	170	62.50%
2011	310	174	56.13%
2012	336	168	50.00%
2013	357	176	49.30%
2014	370	168	45.41%
2015		184

Obviously the big take away from that chart is that team revenues are climbing significantly faster than payroll. From 2002 to 2010 the team spent on average 58.5% of total revenues on major league payroll. Since then the % spent has declined every year to a low of 45% in 2014. I presume that will rise in 2015 once the revenue totals are known but probably not that much, even if revenues only held steady at $370m in 2015 our $184 would only represent 49% of revenues.
 
2) 2016 is the last year of the existing CBA. There is no way the MLBPA is going to agree to a new CBA that doesn't include a big time increase in the luxury tax given that the tax was originally set at 90% of average team revenues and has now fallen below 65% of team revenues. A CBA that goes back to the 90% baseline would increase the luxury tax to around $270m. The Red Sox are below the tax for 2015, so we're only looking at the 17% rate for 2016, and after that, who knows what the rate is going to look like.
 
3) NESN ratings fell from 173,000 per game to 114,000 last year, and while I can't find 2015 numbers I'm guessing that number has continued to fall given the firing of Don Orsillo. While most team operate with long term media contracts that insulate them from year to year fluctuations in ratings, I suspect the Red Sox ownership of NESN changes things significantly for us - but I'm just speculating here. Still, how many more last place seasons can this fan base endure, and at what cost to the Red Sox brand?
 
All of which is to say that the Red Sox are absolutely in position to spend and spend big this offseason, which is what I expect and what all the fans of this franchise should expect. 

 

[AB in DC]

 
The Red Sox are below the tax for 2015, so we're only looking at the 17% rate for 2016, and after that, who knows what the rate is going to look like.
 

 
Are you sure about this?  I had heard the opposite.

 

[WenZink]

 
Actually, it does free up payroll.  If the Red Sox eat $5M/yr of Hanley's deal, that would make it more palatable to offload the rest for some piece of minor value, thus freeing up the other ~$17M/yr to spend elsewhere.  If the org believes Hanley has minimal value for the roster going forward, eating $5M to spend $17M somewhere else on the roster would be a lot better than just sitting with Hanley's $22M/yr on the books.

 
Do you really think any team will take on $17 mil per year for Hanley Ramirez?  Until proven otherwise he's a DH.  The best DH in the league makes $16 mil.  Hanley is far from that number, and teams in the market for a full-time DH are very few.  I suggested, in my post, that Hanley could be moved, right now, for close to 60% of his contract, or eating $13 mil per year.

 

[jscola85]

 
Do you really think any team will take on $17 mil per year for Hanley Ramirez?  Until proven otherwise he's a DH.  The best DH in the league makes $16 mil.  Hanley is far from that number, and teams in the market for a full-time DH are very few.  I suggested, in my post, that Hanley could be moved, right now, for close to 60% of his contract, or eating $13 mil per year.

 
Whether it's $5M or $8M or $13M, the team can absolutely eat part of his deal and free up payroll via trade.  Your comment was trading him would not free up payroll, which is objectively untrue.

 

[WenZink]

 
Are you sure about this?  I had heard the opposite.

 
I think Prometheus' table just includes the value of the contracts.  The Sox are over the cap this year.  They were at right around $200 mil earlier in the year, including the $10-$13 million in player benefits that's added on to the contract total.  I guess they did clear some payroll when they were able to move Craig off the 40 man at midseason, and they dumped just a few million in the small percentages of the Victorino and Napoli contracs that the Angels and Rangers picked up.  Not to mention they were still paying the Dodgers $4 million a year for Crawford.
 
It makes a difference -- not so much the $17.5% they'll pay on the overage, but it would be 30% of the overage next year, 40% in year 3 and 50% in year 4.  All of this subject to the new CBA after 2016.

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

It's only freeing up payroll if the money you save moving HR is greater than the money you spend on his replacement. If Shaw/JBJ's his replacement, this is obvious, but if you're looking to improve via free agency/trade, this is less likely.

 

[WenZink]

 
Whether it's $5M or $8M or $13M, the team can absolutely eat part of his deal and free up payroll via trade.  Your comment was trading him would not free up payroll, which is objectively untrue.

 
It was subjectively untrue, because I added the the sentence, "Not to mention you would have to pay for a replacement."  In the case of Pablo, the Sox have no obvious replacement for what was a "black hole" at 3rd.  If Hanley flops at 1st, then I suppose Shaw would be a candidate (or at 3rd), but that's not clear right now.  Ramirez is also a back up for a 40 year old DH, and there's no power candidate at AAA or AA.
 
So yes, the Sox might be able to save a few million a year, but not enough to make a difference in going after expensive FA's.  But stating that Hanley could be moved with the Sox just eating $5 mil a year ($15 mil in total) is just a complete pipe dream.  If that was even remotely possible, he would have been out of here at the trading deadline.

 

[WenZink]

snip....
 
All of which is to say that the Red Sox are absolutely in position to spend and spend big this offseason, which is what I expect and what all the fans of this franchise should expect. 
 

 
Why are you equating  MLB payroll to the total spent by the Red Sox on player acquistions?  In the IFA signing period, from July 2014- June 2015, the Red Sox spent approximately $37 million in bonuses.  Since their allotted bonus pool was $1.88 mil, they went over by $35 million, thus incurring another $35 mil in penalties.
 
If I take that $70+ million and add it to your 2015 mlb salary figure of $184, then I get over $250 million.  Assuming that the Sox revenues for 2015 are around the revenues of 2014 ($370), then the Sox expended 70% of their revenue on MLB payroll and IFA combined.
 
Now I'm sure the Sox had IFA expenses in years prior, but nothing like the last year.  (I think the previous high was in 2009-10 when the total cost was $10 mil, including half of it for Iglesias)
 
Edit: And in the interest of completeness, the Sox also spent more on the Rule 4 Amateur draft before the hard cap slot allotments were assigned in 2013.

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Overall player compensation in baseball is about 40% of revenue, its lowest since before the 1994 strike.  I would think the new CBA (expiring after 2016) should up the luxury tax thresholds considerably.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Why can't the Sox stand pat with Hanley and Sandoval and upgrade their pitching by trading prospects for relatively cheap established MLBers (S.Gray, etc)? We can move HR to 1st, fill in with guys like Shaw and Holt, and significantly upgrade our pitchng to improve. And stay within the LT.

 

[WenZink]

Why can't the Sox stand pat with Hanley and Sandoval and upgrade their pitching by trading prospects for relatively cheap established MLBers (S.Gray, etc)? We can move HR to 1st, fill in with guys like Shaw and Holt, and significantly upgrade our pitchng to improve. And stay within the LT.

 
That very subject has been the current issue of debate in the thread, "This too shall pass.  Righting the ship for 2016."

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Why can't the Sox stand pat with Hanley and Sandoval and upgrade their pitching by trading prospects for relatively cheap established MLBers (S.Gray, etc)? We can move HR to 1st, fill in with guys like Shaw and Holt, and significantly upgrade our pitchng to improve. And stay within the LT.

Considering the 2015 Red Sox offense is 3rd in the AL in R/G, and the pitching is last in the AL in RA/G, I suspect what DDski will do is exactly that: go hard after pitching and stand pat with Hanley and Sandoval.

But the problem with trading prospects for "relatively cheap established MLBers (S.Gray, etc.)" is the gaping hole in the Sox system between the "prospects" who are actually keystoning Boston's recent competitive resurgence in August, and the "prospects" in low-A and rookie ball who are too far away to have much significant value on a per-player basis.

The farm system is a numbers game, which is why Hi-A to AA prospects are so important. It takes fewer of them to get a deal done, but they're not necessarily going to be the MLB club's depth options like AAA players, either.

Unfortunately, Salem and Portland are dreadful right now.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

FWIW, here's the breakdown of salary by leaving the offense intact, by AAV rather than actual dollar amount:

$22.000 Hanley Ramirez (1B)
$19.000 Pablo Sandoval (3B)
$16.000 David Ortiz (DH)
$13.750 Dustin Pedroia (2B)
$10.357 Rusney Castillo (RF)
$ 3.583 Ryan Hanigan ( C )
$ 0.525 Josh Rutledge (SS/2B) min 3
$ 0.525 Xander Bogaerts (SS) min 3
$ 0.525 Brock Holt (IF/OF) min 3
$ 0.525 Mookie Betts (LF) min 2
$ 0.525 Jackie Bradley (CF) min 2
$ 0.525 Blake Swihart ( C ) min 1
$ 0.525 Travis Shaw (1B/3B) min 1
$88.365 Hitters (but still need 5th OF)

$20.625 Rick Porcello (SP 4)
$13.000 Clay Buchholz (SP 2)
$ 9.000 Koji Uehara (RP 1)
$ 6.417 Wade Miley (SP 3)
$ 3.750 Junichi Tazawa (RP 2) arb 3
$ 2.500 Joe Kelly (SP 5) arb 1
$ 2.250 Alexei Ogando (RP 3) arb 2
$ 1.500 Ryan Cook (RP 4) arb 2
$ 0.750 Anthony Varvaro (RP 5) arb 1
$ 0.525 Tommy Layne (RP 6) min 2
$ 0.525 Steven Wright (RP 7) min 1
$60.842 Pitchers (but still need SP 1)

$149.207 Player Salaries
$ 12.000 Estimated Benefits
$161.207 committed toward the $189.000 luxury tax "soft cap"

So if the Sox stand pat, there's a whisker above $27.75 million to get an ace and a 5th OF. Maybe Cueto ($27) and Francoeur ($0.75) would sign for that to round out the team, but then all in-season flexibility is absolutely killed, and the Sox still have to option EdRo, Owens, Workman, Barnes, and Hembree back to AAA in favor of (almost certainly) inferior options.

Much more likely, all the arbitration-eligible relief pitchers get non-tendered except Tazawa. Because they've all been terrible. But then DDski still has to find warm bodies for the pen.

It's a tough situation, and it doesn't get any easier when Bogaerts hits arbitration after 2016.

 

[WenZink]

Alex Speier had the total between $170 and $175 mil.  The only difference I can spot off the top of my head is that he accounted for the salaries of all of the players on the 40 man roster.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Alex Speier had the total between $170 and $175 mil.  The only difference I can spot off the top of my head is that he accounted for the salaries of all of the players on the 40 man roster.

He may have included Allen Craig, or estimated arbitration-eligible salaries differently.

Please provide a link, if it's a relatively current article. Now that he's with the Globe and their "5 free articles" policy, I rarely head over there.

Plus, I don't want to accidentally give clicks to the CHB.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

It's a tough situation, and it doesn't get any easier when Bogaerts hits arbitration after 2016.

 
Here are a couple of ways it might get easier:
 
1) Ortiz is very likely to retire after next year, and even if he doesn't, is very unlikely to command the full $16M he will in 2016--as soon as he hits 500 HR, the manager (whoever he is) will start sitting him more often, especially against LHP, to get Hanley's glove off the field. I will be shocked if Ortiz hits 600 PA next year and surprised if he hits 500 (unless Hanley or Pablo is gone, which of course would be in itself a way things get easier).
 
2) Porcello may be unmovable unless he rebounds strongly, in which case we probably want to keep him. But I think there's approximately a 5-10% chance that both Buchholz and Miley are on the Sox 2017 Opening Day roster. One of them is gone, possibly as soon as this winter, certainly as soon as next.
 
That's somewhere between $16 and $30 million there.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Here are a couple of ways it might get easier:
 
1) Ortiz is very likely to retire after next year, and even if he doesn't, is very unlikely to command the full $16M he will in 2016--as soon as he hits 500 HR, the manager (whoever he is) will start sitting him more often, especially against LHP, to get Hanley's glove off the field. I will be shocked if Ortiz hits 600 PA next year and surprised if he hits 500 (unless Hanley or Pablo is gone, which of course would be in itself a way things get easier).
 
2) Porcello may be unmovable unless he rebounds strongly, in which case we probably want to keep him. But I think there's approximately a 5-10% chance that both Buchholz and Miley are on the Sox 2017 Opening Day roster. One of them is gone, possibly as soon as this winter, certainly as soon as next.
 
That's somewhere between $16 and $30 million there.

Which is good, because the Sox will need to find a closer and primary set-up man after Koji and Tazawa both hit free agency at the same time

FWIW, I quite agree about Miley. DDski's likely to move him this offseason so EdRo can replace his innings at the MLB level for a net savings that can hopefully pay for two decent bullpen arms.


EDIT:

Alex Speier had the total between $170 and $175 mil.  The only difference I can spot off the top of my head is that he accounted for the salaries of all of the players on the 40 man roster.

I found your link on the other thread, and the difference is primarily where Speier includes the Sox "earmarking $10 million for minor leaguers on the 40-man roster, depth callups and midyear signings, along with players added via trades."

I didn't add that in, since part of my point is to show how hamstrung the Sox would be within the season by standing pat and adding just one ace starter, vis-a-vis paying salary cap penalties, at least.

 

[Pilgrim]

Bump for MLBTR putting out their arbitration estimates today.  These are usually accurate.
 

 
 

• Alexi Ogando (5.114) – $2.4MM
• Junichi Tazawa (5.086) – $3.3MM
• Anthony Varvaro (3.121) – $700K
• Joe Kelly (3.101) – $3.2MM
• Robbie Ross (3.100) – $1.1MM
• Ryan Cook (3.086) – $1.4MM
• Jean Machi (2.154) – $900K

 
 
Figure Cook and Ogando are gone.  Maybe Machi as well.  

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Bump for MLBTR putting out their arbitration estimates today.  These are usually accurate.
 
 
 
Figure Cook and Ogando are gone.  Maybe Machi as well.  

 
Varvaro's probably gone, too.
 
The $4.5MM savings on him, Cook, and Ogando should be enough to pay Rich Hill and two minimum salary RHP relievers like Wright and Workman.
 
Machi's still got an option remaining for 2016, so they'll likely hold onto him at $900K.

 

[Shane]

With all the contracts they're losing (Napoli, Victorino, Masterson, De Aza, Breslow) isn't that more than enough to sign Price?

 

[AB in DC]

 
Machi's still got an option remaining for 2016, so they'll likely hold onto him at $900K.

 
That's a bit high for a guy who doesn't fit into the major league plans.  I would bet they would non-tender him but try to sign him to a minor-league contract (EDIT: with a spring training invite).  Same for Varvaro.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

With all the contracts they're losing (Napoli, Victorino, Masterson, De Aza, Breslow) isn't that more than enough to sign Price?

You keep positing this question...Buzzkill Pauley posted (quoted below) a good list of salary commitments last week that paint the "what can they afford?" picture.

It's not as simple as money-off-the-books = money-available-for-free-agents. There are raises to consider for arb-eligibles, extensions kicking in (Porcello's chief among them), other holes to fill outside "ace", and of course the unanswerable question of "will they go over the luxury tax cap?"

Also, De Aza cost next to nothing (~$400K). He adds nothing to your list of deducted salaries.

FWIW, here's the breakdown of salary by leaving the offense intact, by AAV rather than actual dollar amount:

$22.000 Hanley Ramirez (1B)
$19.000 Pablo Sandoval (3B)
$16.000 David Ortiz (DH)
$13.750 Dustin Pedroia (2B)
$10.357 Rusney Castillo (RF)
$ 3.583 Ryan Hanigan ( C )
$ 0.525 Josh Rutledge (SS/2B) min 3
$ 0.525 Xander Bogaerts (SS) min 3
$ 0.525 Brock Holt (IF/OF) min 3
$ 0.525 Mookie Betts (LF) min 2
$ 0.525 Jackie Bradley (CF) min 2
$ 0.525 Blake Swihart ( C ) min 1
$ 0.525 Travis Shaw (1B/3B) min 1
$88.365 Hitters (but still need 5th OF)

$20.625 Rick Porcello (SP 4)
$13.000 Clay Buchholz (SP 2)
$ 9.000 Koji Uehara (RP 1)
$ 6.417 Wade Miley (SP 3)
$ 3.750 Junichi Tazawa (RP 2) arb 3
$ 2.500 Joe Kelly (SP 5) arb 1
$ 2.250 Alexei Ogando (RP 3) arb 2
$ 1.500 Ryan Cook (RP 4) arb 2
$ 0.750 Anthony Varvaro (RP 5) arb 1
$ 0.525 Tommy Layne (RP 6) min 2
$ 0.525 Steven Wright (RP 7) min 1
$60.842 Pitchers (but still need SP 1)

$149.207 Player Salaries
$ 12.000 Estimated Benefits
$161.207 committed toward the $189.000 luxury tax "soft cap"

So if the Sox stand pat, there's a whisker above $27.75 million to get an ace and a 5th OF.

 

[IpswichSox]

Yeah but luxury tax calculations take into account the 40-man roster, not just 25. So for Buzzkill's projections, guys like Vazquez need to be factored in, as well as Allen Craig's $9 million in 2016 since he came back on the 40 man roster when he was promoted in September (I guess it's actually $10 million AAV since he's also guaranteed $11 million in 2017).

 

[Rovin Romine]

With all the contracts they're losing (Napoli, Victorino, Masterson, De Aza, Breslow) isn't that more than enough to sign Price?

 
Cot's should be your first stop:  https://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/cots/al-east/boston-red-sox/
 
I don't know if it has all the information you might need, but in particular their current payroll obligations document can be very useful: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1urYwZOFAAvDhgtNZ86IJ8svhQUNEVoa3Y8Nf1TJb9dI/pub?output=html
 
It was updated on 9/15.  They're usually pretty good about updating it after trades, etc. 

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Yeah but luxury tax calculations take into account the 40-man roster, not just 25. So for Buzzkill's projections, guys like Vazquez need to be factored in, as well as Allen Craig's $9 million in 2016 since he came back on the 40 man roster when he was promoted in September (I guess it's actually $10 million AAV since he's also guaranteed $11 million in 2017).

 
Craig's AAV is still $6.2M, his yo yo to Pawtucket doesn't change his contract. And they can once again make the same move they did last year and option him without needing his permission and get him off the AAV books. I would say you can probably just go ahead and subtract him, since his options are to take the demotion or walk away from his deal and either way, he's no longer on the payroll for luxury tax purposes. 

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Yeah but luxury tax calculations take into account the 40-man roster, not just 25. So for Buzzkill's projections, guys like Vazquez need to be factored in, as well as Allen Craig's $9 million in 2016 since he came back on the 40 man roster when he was promoted in September (I guess it's actually $10 million AAV since he's also guaranteed $11 million in 2017).

 
I'm somewhat sure Craig can be outrighted again, and his only options are: 1) accept it or 2) refuse it, but declare himself a free agent and forfeit the remained of his contract.
 
Changing gears a bit, it'll be interesting to see what happens with Clay Buchholz and his option. Questions to ask:
 
- How likely is Clay to be worth $13M next season?
 
- Is Clay Buchholz, at current, tradeable on a 1/13 contract with an option for 2017? 
 
- Could Clay's $13M be put to better use?
 
- Assuming we sign an "ace", do we have enough starting pitching to trade or let Clay walk?
 
The space under cap jump up to around $40M if we don't retain Clay, which, if we were to give David Price ~$27M, would leave ~13-14M to acquire a couple of top bullpen arms. And that said, I don't think the luxury threshold is a hard ceiling for the Sox. If they find themselves with $15M to spend, but need $20M to bring in "the right guys", I don't see them not doing that.
 
At the same time, they may want to leave space to sign guys like Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart and Rodriguez to extensions. One question I'd love to ask DD or JWH is "with the MLB payroll to revenue ratio down so dramatically from the time the current CBA was signed, and with that current CBA about to end, does management/ownership feel comfortable in anticipating a drastic increase in the luxury threshold, thus alleviating concerns on "overspending" this offseason? Simply put, how safe is it for DD to go out and sign two top free agent pitchers, extend all the young stars, and casually shrug and assume that the new CBA will put them back under the threshold after one season of overspending?

 

[YTF]

As to money "coming off the books" I always felt that part of the money they spent on the 2015 team was in anticipation of Napoli and Victorino and Masterson being done at the end of this season. Remember there were big expectations for this offense and IF it didn't pan out, well we have money coming of the books next season that will help pay for Ramirez, Sandoval and Porcello moving forward. I'm not sure that was part of the thinking process, but always felt it was sort of a "let's roll the dice on this season and if it doesn't work, we shed some payroll next year."