Would you, could you trade Mike Napoli?

[The Boomer]

Very unlikely that it matters whether the payroll is $190M or $250M next season, as long as enough salary is off the books by 2016 or 2017 in order to reset the luxury tax. If Napoli had another year or two in his deal after 2015, then it would make. More sense to move him for financial reasons.

 
However it does make a difference!  The gap between the luxury tax effective cap ($189M) and what you would pay ($250M) is roughly $71M ($61M greater salaries plus 17% tax).  If this was Monopoly money nobody would care. Nevertheless, IMO it's highly likely that how high the payroll goes does matter to Mr. Henry. If they are contenders, I could see how they might go to $200M or a little above that.  Nevertheless, it makes little sense for a last place team to pay so much plus luxury tax until it is clear that they are contending.  The Sox aren't the Yankees although it seems like it when they go on a spending spree every few years.  Hanley and Panda were within budget in the first place because they were relatively frugal during the last few years and the Yankees apparently can't bid with them competitively this winter because they fielded a non-playoff team with $250M or more of Steinbrenner Monopoly money.  No thank you.

 

[Paradigm]

Not wild about it if the team wants to contend next year. Unless Hanley is playing 1B, the team has very bad options. Napoli puts together very good AB's, is quite consistent, plays good defense, and is by all accounts great in the clubhouse. Allen Craig is not the answer until he rebounds to his previous level.
 
IMO, Napoli is the #1 guy on a one-year deal that should be kept. Then Victorino, then Cespedes.

 

[Rasputin]

 
However it does make a difference!  The gap between the luxury tax effective cap ($189M) and what you would pay ($250M) is roughly $71M ($61M greater salaries plus 17% tax).  If this was Monopoly money nobody would care. Nevertheless, IMO it's highly likely that how high the payroll goes does matter to Mr. Henry. If they are contenders, I could see how they might go to $200M or a little above that.  Nevertheless, it makes little sense for a last place team to pay so much plus luxury tax until it is clear that they are contending.  The Sox aren't the Yankees although it seems like it when they go on a spending spree every few years.  Hanley and Panda were within budget in the first place because they were relatively frugal during the last few years and the Yankees apparently can't bid with them competitively this winter because they fielded a non-playoff team with $250M or more of Steinbrenner Monopoly money.  No thank you.

It's worth noting that the most Napoli can save is his salary plus the penalty. If a signing were going to put the payroll 60 million over the limit, well, fuck it, a signing can't. Sixty million over the cap would be like having a payroll at the cap and signing Lester, Scherzer, and Miller.

If signing Lester means going over the cap, it's going to be much more like ten million plus the tax which is much more doable.

 

[Apisith]

I wonder where the limit is truly is for payroll.

We know from the past that Henry has not preferred to go above to cap, he's referred to the effects of the CBA a few years ago. After the new CBA came in, he made it even clearer that going pass the cap is not good for us long term because he expected the penalties to be stiff.

However, since then, we've heard him say multiple times that the penalty isn't as stiff as expected and he's mentioned that going pass the cap is something that can be done. I wonder whether we'd be okay with having a consistent payroll at $200m or whether we would have to dip below it once every two years or so to reset the tax. We're a huge club with a stadium that is almost always full. We own our TV network which must generate huge amounts of money. If the Yankees can afford $230m year-in year-out, where is our limit? The Dodgers will be above the cap every year for the foreseeable future, too. Where is our real limit where it doesn't make financial sense anymore?

 

[67WasBest]

I wonder where the limit is truly is for payroll.

We know from the past that Henry has not preferred to go above to cap, he's referred to the effects of the CBA a few years ago. After the new CBA came in, he made it even clearer that going pass the cap is not good for us long term because he expected the penalties to be stiff.

However, since then, we've heard him say multiple times that the penalty isn't as stiff as expected and he's mentioned that going pass the cap is something that can be done. I wonder whether we'd be okay with having a consistent payroll at $200m or whether we would have to dip below it once every two years or so to reset the tax. We're a huge club with a stadium that is almost always full. We own our TV network which must generate huge amounts of money. If the Yankees can afford $230m year-in year-out, where is our limit? The Dodgers will be above the cap every year for the foreseeable future, too. Where is our real limit where it doesn't make financial sense anymore?

He said one year above acceptable, not a steady diet.  One year above does not cost the revenue sharing penalty.  They would only pay 17% of the funds above the cap.

 

[Apisith]

He's said that the revenue sharing penalties aren't as stiff as expected, which is why I'm really wondering where our limit is. The $189m has been the default limit for a while now but it was only so because of the expected revenue sharing penalties. Now that we know it's lesser than expected, are we willing to break the cap year-in year-out? If not, why not?

 

[67WasBest]

He's said that the revenue sharing penalties aren't as stiff as expected, which is why I'm really wondering where our limit is. The $189m has been the default limit for a while now but it was only so because of the expected revenue sharing penalties. Now that we know it's lesser than expected, are we willing to break the cap year-in year-out? If not, why not?

The prevailing thought is the sky's the limit on 2015, as long as they can return below the line in 2016.  They will pay a 17% premium on an overage, but to do so two years running means they forgo their television revenue sharing and that cost is too steep, at more than $20M per year.  So look to do whatever they want this year, provided the long term impact isn't there.  I just added a list on another thread that showed they have $148 committed if they sign Lester and Miller, so they really don't have the kind of flexibility they like for next year.

 

[Devizier]

Cespedes is worth more to the league, while Napoli is worth more to the Red Sox. Seems like an easy decision.

 

[4 6 3 DP]

Cespedes is worth more to the league, while Napoli is worth more to the Red Sox. Seems like an easy decision.

 
If this is true, the conversation is moot. The question I asked in the other thread was designed more to ponder what happens in a worst case scenario, and it seems folks are more comfortable with a Nava/Brentz platoon in right than they are with Craig playing first. Which is obviously a very reasonable position. 

 

[Shore Thing]

Cespedes is worth more to the league, while Napoli is worth more to the Red Sox. Seems like an easy decision.

Based on what, some random anecdotal information? Or is there actual evidence to support this?

 

[lxt]

He's said that the revenue sharing penalties aren't as stiff as expected, which is why I'm really wondering where our limit is. The $189m has been the default limit for a while now but it was only so because of the expected revenue sharing penalties. Now that we know it's lesser than expected, are we willing to break the cap year-in year-out? If not, why not?

The threshold level for the luxury tax will be $189MM in 2014 and will remain at $189MM through 2016. From 2012 through 2016, teams who exceed the threshold for the first time must pay 17.5% of the amount they are over, 30% for the second consecutive year over, 40% for the third consecutive year over, and 50% for four or more consecutive years over the cap.

 

[smastroyin]

There is always the chance that there is no market specifically for Cespedes, but I think the reason for the conjecture is basic common sense.  Common sense doesn't always prevail in the market because it is so limited, of course.
 
If, in terms of objective neutral value, they are equal, Cespedes should have more value around the league because:
  1)  He can play corner OF and Napoli cannot.  It is pretty likely that he would be able to handle first if he were willing to move.  That means he can cover twice as many positions as Napoli (including DH for both of them).  Of course, this value evens out if Cespedes is not willing to play RF or 1B for anyone.
  2)  Cespedes has a more attractive one year deal ($6 million less owed).  
  3)  Cespedes is younger and has some more name recognition.
  4)  Cespedes has more raw power (or at least the perception of), which seems to be a more rare commodity around baseball these days.
 
Napoli has more value to the Red Sox because
  1)  Trading Napoli means taking on the risk of Cespedes or Ramirez adapting to 1B (maybe not that hard, but those guys may resist the move) OR betting on a Craig/Nava comeback.
  2)  They are grooming a SS with a somewhat erratic arm, so Napoli's defense may have an added benefit (this again is risk, other guys may be just as good as him, we just don't know)
  2)  It may mean nothing but he has been here.

 

[Devizier]

Based on what, some random anecdotal information? Or is there actual evidence to support this?

 
Durability (129, 135, 152 games versus 108, 139, 119 games over the last three seasons) and age (29 versus 33).
 
Median expected performance next year (at least by Steamer) is a wash, but the risk of collapse for Napoli, given the above factors plus avascular necrosis, is much higher.
 
If the Red Sox keep Napoli, their worst case scenario is the current best case scenario if they let him go. In other words, outfielders as first basemen with the inherent risk. On the other hand, trading Cespedes won't really hurt their outfield situation all that much.
 
Plus what smastroyin mentioned above.
 
eta: Forgot to throw in the obligatory implied insults and/or snark.