237 replies to this topic

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I'm a little surprised Philly didnt cross the line. Most reports I saw had them higher the. Us but I guess it was an AAV difference.

[Lose Remerswaal]

I'm a little surprised Philly didnt cross the line. Most reports I saw had them higher the. Us but I guess it was an AAV difference.

don't you have to be over for 2 years in a row, or something like that, for the tax to be in place?

[Hee-Seop's Fable]

don't you have to be over for 2 years in a row, or something like that, for the tax to be in place?

Teams pay the tax anytime they go over the limit, as defined by AAV of contracts plus benefits. It's just at the nominal rate the first time and an escalating rate each subsequent year, leveling off at the peak rate the third year and beyond. Those escalated rates that penalize for consecutive years over the cap are going up in the new CBA, so there's been talk of the Sox and Yankees trying to get under the limit of $178M as soon as possible.

That would mean zero in tax if the Sox stay under the $178M, vs. 40% if they don't. If the Yankees can get under the '14 cap of $189M, they'd pay zero vs. 50% if they can't, higher than the 40% they paid this year. Given their gigantic revenue advantage I'm not sure I understand why they care. Has Cashman simply decided development is a better way to spend, and that outbidding his competition every few years on the guys he wants by 10% is good enough, whereas outbidding them more decisively, every year, is a waste even for the Yankees?

[kazuneko]

Stark writes on what has been the story of the offseason for the Sox: their quest to avoid luxury taxes...
http://espn.go.com/m...ox-spending-big
Unfortunately, the story is already a bit outdated as the Yanks did something today that will cost them more in taxes next year (signing Kuroda).
But hey, at least in one small way the Sox have had a successful offseason....
I wonder who among us would have supported the Crawford signing if we had known that just one season later the team wouldn't be able to afford a one-year $10 million dollar a year deal for Kuroda....
That deal looks worse and worse each day. How could they have been so comfortable overspending on Crawford if their longterm budget was so uncertain?

Edited by kazuneko, 13 January 2012 - 10:03 PM.

[JimBoSox9]

Their longterm budget isn't uncertain at all. They have a specific reason to stay under this year (the 3rd-year escalated penalty). They knew at the time that it was going to be a squeeze this year, but if they pull it off they'll re-set the luxury penalty in time for a better free agent crop next year.

(null)

[kazuneko]

Their longterm budget isn't uncertain at all. They have a specific reason to stay under this year (the 3rd-year escalated penalty). They knew at the time that it was going to be a squeeze this year, but if they pull it off they'll re-set the luxury penalty in time for a better free agent crop next year.

(null)

So I guess earlier reports suggesting they would likely exceed the cap weren't recognizing the priority they were placing on this. I guess that makes sense when you look at the moves they've been making, but is it really feasible for them to stay under the cap? Before the Punto pick up it was estimated the even without any other moves they would end up reaching anywhere from $170-$175 million (after benefit payments and arbitration). That would mean that if you add in Punto's $1.5 million they could already be only $1.5 million away from hitting the $178 million dollar limit. Since the luxury tax is calculated at the end of the season that would mean they would have to be very cautious - not just with any forthcoming signings before the season starts but with any in-season moves as well. That would mean that even a cheap pick-up like Colon might be off the table and that there might be few options for any midseason acquisitions as well...

Edited by kazuneko, 13 January 2012 - 11:05 PM.

[OttoC]

I can't find a copy of the new CBA on-line but I thought I read a report that the timing for exceeding the luxury tax was changed to amy three out of five years. Does anyone know about that?

[SoxScout]

By FO accounting, Boston's over cap threshold. After Cashman's Friday the 13th stealthvmoves, Cherington should be allowed to sign Oswalt.

Gammo says we're already over

A Sox official acknowledged Friday night that Kuroda, who reportedly signed a one-year, $10 million deal with the Yankees, was too rich for the Sox at that price.

Edes

Edited by SoxScout, 14 January 2012 - 12:32 AM.

[One Red Seat]

I understand the Sox desire/concern regarding the Luxury Tax but, with the money that they already have invested in the club, it just seems foolish to leave the team so short-handed on pitching. It is like owning a Ferrari and not putting tires on it. If you are going to buy the Ferrari, you have to find a way to put the tires on even if it means extending further than you planned on.
I don't know much about playoff gates or anything but it would seem like the team would recoup the Luxury Tax penalty and then some with a playoff run. It certainly would seem to be more desirable than spending to just short of the threshold and likely leaving yourself shy of the necessary talent to get in the post-season

[kazuneko]

Gammo says we're already over

If the Sox are already over doesn't that mean that the decision to not sign Kuroda has nothing to do with the luxury tax limit? A one year deal would obviously have no affect on next season's luxury tax either. So I guess $10 million for Kuroda (a great bargain) is too much for this team to handle...
If so, this suggests there might be serious concerns with this team's financial future.Something that is even more troubling when you consider that Texas and Anaheim are just beginning to reap the benefits of their huge cable deals.

Edited by kazuneko, 14 January 2012 - 02:20 AM.

[bosockboy]

And if they pass on Oswalt for 1/8......a serious no-brainer....then that is downright scary.

[TheYaz67]

Yeah, I'm getting the distinct vibe that you can forget Oswalt and anyone like him (especially older guys who have injury issues like him) salary-wise. I think it is clear by the bargain-bin diving they have been doing to hopefully acquire a 5th starter that they have no interest in going over the luxury tax threshold that would saddle them with the 40% penalty going forward.

It sucks, but we/Ben/Bobby V all are just going to have to live with the fact that we have a lot of cash tied up in Lackey and Dice-K that is going to provide little to no innings pitched in 2012. They are some of your "tires" for your Ferrari. All outta money for new tires at this point, just stockpiling retreads to get through the near term.

They are perhaps counting on the fact that with a bit of luck health-wise, this team can at least compete for the 2nd wild card in 2012 with a questionable starting pitching staff (well, at least the 4th and 5th spots).

If the Yankees had stayed pat with their pitching, this approach doesn't seem too bad, but now of course with them upgrading we are all rightly freaking out that it is highly unlikely that the Sox pitching staff will be upgraded likewise.....

[The Boomer]

This is just one more confirmation that the Yankees are playing with Monopoly money compared to every other team. The usual difference between their total payout and the Red Sox total payout is more than the payrolls of many small market teams. Theo's legacy includes his payout for the Crawford contract that still has a chance of turning out not so bad (though unlikely to ever be worth it). Lackey and (in retrospect) Dice-K also became financial black holes. That was the problem. Instead of smartly deploying their financial advantage compared to everyone else, the organization tried to financially compete with the Yankees. That has been their historical hubris. I believe this new Sox thriftiness is real and that, considering they are only looking for rotation back end starters, bridge pitchers in the bullpen and maybe another outfielder, the worst thing they could do is panic in response to the latest Yankees moves. Signing Oswalt for one season at $8 million would be a bargain but it might spoil their goal to get under that salary cap to put them in position for better and more cost effective big ticket acquisitions in future seasons. A lack of financial discipline now could have worse repercussions in the long run.

Though it cost good prospects, A Gonz is a payroll bargain now that the open market price for Pujols and Fielder is established. Now they need to stop the bleeding. Screwing up the payroll now might be like masking an injury with painkillers rather than healing it (taking advil for that hangover rather than pursuing substance abuse treatment). The difference between Doubront (or one from among his cheap competition) as the #5 starter and Oswalt, for 1 year at $8 million plus the future financial drag that could inhibit better future acquisitions over the long haul, doesn't seem worth it. The same could be said about the difference between Miller (or someone else at reasonable prices) and the acquisition of Madson (for what the Reds paid) plus the future financial drag.

The best team is usually not the most expensive (considering Yankees finishes for the last decade). The Red Sox won 2 championships in the same decade while never having the top (though almost always the runner up) payroll. It's something like playing a drinking game (between the teams) with the Yankees always able to hold their liquor better showing almost no effects while the Sox almost always wake up drunk, hungover and sick trying to keep up. Theo jumped ship, in part, because he couldn't sober this organization up. It's ironic that he is now in a market backing his all out rebuilding (detoxification) for (badly attempting to finish this analogy) the most degenerate alcoholic of all organizations (i.e. the Cubs). Theo has his fans believing that he is doing what is necessary. It's too bad that, rather than supporting Cherington for sobering up the Sox (including players in the clubhouse), too many fans will complain because he isn't playing more drinking games with Cashman.

[In my lifetime]

Gammo says we're already over



Edes

It is very possible that the Red Sox will still get under the luxury tax. Signing Ortiz to a reduced multiyear contract instead of the arbitration 1 year deal expected to be at 13- 13.5 million. Sign him for 2 years for 23-24 or even (gasp) 3 for 30. If the strategy is to reset the luxury tax, then this is the way they will go. If they want to get under, the rotation is set: Lester, Beckett, Bucholz, Bard, Aceves. Depth will be a few retreads at under 2 M each + the cast at AAA..

[judyb]

I just don't understand the reasoning, especially after last year, it's like the $10+M DH and several $1.5+M bench players are the necessities they can't live without, but an adequate pitching staff is the luxury they can't afford?

[snowmanny]

I just don't understand the reasoning, especially after last year, it's like the $10+M DH and several $1.5+M bench players are the necessities they can't live without, but an adequate pitching staff is the luxury they can't afford?

I totally agree with this. Obviously the Lackey/Crawford signings were short-sighted since they have left the Red Sox so close to their spending limit that they have incredibly little flexibility going forward. But the obvious Achilles heel for this team is it's very thin starting staff...it would be surprising, in fact, if they weren't looking for another starter by July. Not figuring out a way to free up some payroll so as to snag one of these bargains (Kuroda, Oswalt) is very strange. I would rather have Kuroda than Ortiz, which was the easiest way to free the requisite payroll.

[Bernard Gilkey baby]

Looking at the team as a whole. Our core guys are there. Papelbon was the real loss, but we can overcome that, and I like those bullpen trades. We'll miss Paps, but we can live with it. Dice-K would have been really handy right now. We'd have 5 starters, and we'd be thinking of Aceves as a spot starter and the retreads for our depth. It wouldn't be ideal, but fans could live with it. We have a similar thing in RF. If we were starting the season with Kalish, fans could live with that, too.

But we have a core. I wouldn't rather have Kuroda than Ortiz. This isn't fantasy baseball. There's got to be some continuity, the brand has already taken a pretty big hit.

Trying to find solution for the holes? Well, it's too bad they've wasting 26 million in AAV for pitchers who aren't pitching this season I guess if Dice-K goes for half the season, we could think of it as 21 million in money that's not doing anything for the team. They can't throw money after money when they're up against the tax threshold and the revenues are going down, especially not for a 5th starter. Doesn't seem worth it, especially if there's a more appealing crop of pitchers next year, when the Sox have more payroll room. But If Red Sox have to pay 40 percent on the dollar next year, instead of a the lighter 22.5 percent, those pitchers could be prohibitively expensive.

They aren't signing Punto INSTEAD of Roy Oswalt. It's more likely that we can't sign Oswalt at all. If we had 6 million left and Oswalt costs 8, then we don't get Oswalt. In the meantime, we do want a utility infielder we can count on. We can afford that.

If they are worried about that 40 percent next year, then I get what they are doing. They can go over slightly this year but then they won't go over next season and I'd rather the Sox go over next season for the right talent. I just don't see them putting up with a 40 percent luxury tax. Not with the revenues down. And a team still good enough to win.

Edited by Bernard Gilkey baby, 14 January 2012 - 03:33 PM.

[kazuneko]

Gammo's tweet implies that he is getting his info directly from FO accounting. You'd have to think that if that is what they are saying that the team doesn't think a few minor minor tweaks to their current salaries (like lowering Ortiz' AAV 2012 numbers) will get them under (if so, they probably would have told him something like "it will be close but we have a chance to get under") .
The implication is pretty horrific. If the team "can't afford" great deals like Kuroda or Oswalt and it isn't simply a one- year "lets reset the salary cap" type of thing than the FA mistakes of the previous two offseasons look even worse. I mean, if you are going to be throwing around stupid money for sub-superstar players like Lackey and Crawford you better be able to afford it going forward.
It also makes you wonder where the team was with the Pineda trade. If the Sox are this screwed financially, Pineda is exactly the type of player they should be targeting in a trade (Did they offer them Youkilis and Lavarnway, if their money situation is as bad as it seems I would have). Previously, I was completely against trading Youkilis, but if the team is this screwed financially they might have to start trading expensive veterans for up and coming young players. I was also fully supportive of resigning Ortiz but had no idea that would prevent this team from bolstering their starting rotation...

Edited by kazuneko, 14 January 2012 - 06:11 PM.

[EvilEmpire]

This is just one more confirmation that the Yankees are playing with Monopoly money compared to every other team.

Why? They just traded for a good young pitcher making the minimum who is cost controlled for years. The other pitcher they signed is a solid veteran on a one year deal for less than expected at 10m. Neither of those are big-dollar signings that other teams couldn't try to do. Both those moves are what teams do to keep their costs down: cost controlled young players and veterans on short deals.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Sox couldn't have landed Pineda, they don't have anyone close to Montero. Why would the Mariners have wanted Youkilis, who is expensive and only signed short term? I don't think the Sox can trade Youks either, unless you want Punto playing 3b.

[EvilEmpire]

Sox couldn't have landed Pineda, they don't have anyone close to Montero. Why would the Mariners have wanted Youkilis, who is expensive and only signed short term? I don't think the Sox can trade Youks either, unless you want Punto playing 3b.

I wasn't saying that the Sox could have landed Pineda, just that those are the types of moves that all teams try to make to control their expenses and therefore isn't really a case of the Yankees throwing around money just because they can. There are probably better examples to use for that.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Sorry, more of a response to kaz. I'm sure the Sox wanted Pineda, just don't see any way they could match or exceed the Yankees package.

[PedroKsBambino]

I wasn't saying that the Sox could have landed Pineda, just that those are the types of moves that all teams try to make to control their expenses and therefore isn't really a case of the Yankees throwing around money just because they can. There are probably better examples to use for that.

Since the original point appeared to be about Kuroda (and the Sox for whatever reason not matching or yet signing Oswalt), I think it is in fact a perfect example actually.

[StuckOnYouk]

Couldn't the Sox have offered say Lavarnway, Doubrant and Jacobs and even tell Seattle they could keep the hot prospect they threw in if it came down to it?

That would give the Sox Beckett, Lester, Pineda, Buchholz, Aceves/Bard. 4 of those pitchers still in their 20's and no rise in payroll.

I do recall the M's asked for Lavarnway in the Bedard deal but were rebuffed so they must have had some interest in him. I know he's not a Montero-level prospect as a hitter, but it seems to me he has a better shot at staying as catcher. At least he can throw guys out which is something montero could never do.

[The Boomer]

Why? They just traded for a good young pitcher making the minimum who is cost controlled for years. The other pitcher they signed is a solid veteran on a one year deal for less than expected at 10m. Neither of those are big-dollar signings that other teams couldn't try to do. Both those moves are what teams do to keep their costs down: cost controlled young players and veterans on short deals.

As was metioned, my point wasn't about Pineda but about age 34 Kuroda. The real cost to the Yankees for this single season is $10,000 plus the percentage owed for the luxury tax plus an extra amount for revenue sharing. Figuring in those surcharges, Kuroda was not nearly as much of a bargain as it seems. They are over the cap every year and, even now, they are far more above it than the Sox. Several large contracts will drop out of their payroll in the next few seasons. Unlike for the Sox, their claim that the luxury tax is a financial hindrance to them was just Cashman blowing smoke up everyone's posterior.

Edited by The Boomer, 15 January 2012 - 01:34 AM.

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

Couldn't the Sox have offered say Lavarnway, Doubrant and Jacobs and even tell Seattle they could keep the hot prospect they threw in if it came down to it?

I'm sure they could have made such an offer, but it seems clear that the M's wanted quality over quantity, and even just by straight comparison the Boston offer probably falls well short.

[Kid T]

I totally agree with this. Obviously the Lackey/Crawford signings were short-sighted since they have left the Red Sox so close to their spending limit that they have incredibly little flexibility going forward.

These signings occurred prior to the ratification of the new CBA (and luxury tax penalties). I don't think the FO anticipated the level of penalties that were included.

Couldn't the Sox have offered say Lavarnway, Doubrant and Jacobs and even tell Seattle they could keep the hot prospect they threw in if it came down to it?

That would give the Sox Beckett, Lester, Pineda, Buchholz, Aceves/Bard. 4 of those pitchers still in their 20's and no rise in payroll.

I do recall the M's asked for Lavarnway in the Bedard deal but were rebuffed so they must have had some interest in him. I know he's not a Montero-level prospect as a hitter, but it seems to me he has a better shot at staying as catcher. At least he can throw guys out which is something montero could never do.

You answer your own question. Lavarnway lacks the elite offensive skills that Montero possesses. If you're Seattle, and you're willing to give up Pineda, why settle for the lesser prospect? Also, Lavarnway is far from certain to remain at catcher.

[ponch73]

I wouldn't rather have Kuroda than Ortiz. This isn't fantasy baseball. There's got to be some continuity, the brand has already taken a pretty big hit.

This is a sentiment -- the notion that there has to be some continuity as opposed to wanting Ortiz back -- that I could not disagree more strongly with. It strikes me that this is exactly the kind of thinking that lulled the front office into resigning players where the risk/reward profile due to age or deteriorating skill was unfavorable with guys like Timlin, Schilling, Varitek, Javier Lopez, Lowell, etc.

I'm also in the camp that would prefer not to invest roughly $14 mil in a DH at the expense of pitching needs. Hopefully, the Bard/Aceves/Bailey/Melancin moves will make the Ortiz investment moot.

Edited by ponch73, 15 January 2012 - 02:15 PM.

[lambeau]

Anybody agree the MFY rotation additions are a game changer? I say we need a big starter, tax or no.

[barbed wire Bob]

Anybody agree the MFY rotation additions are a game changer? I say we need a big starter, tax or no.

Who would you suggest? Really the only FA available is Oswalt and, If you sign him, you exceed the cap and are taxed at 40% in 2013. don't think he is worth the cost. However, next year Hamels, Greinke, Cain and Anibal Sanchez are all free agents. If the Red Sox stay under the cap this year then the tax resets and they can afford to splurge next year.

[Bigpupp]

Jarrod Saltalamacchia avoided arbitration and will make 2.5 Million this year, which is almost 1M more than some people projected.

Also, according to the spreadsheet I've been keeping the Sox are officially over the cap.

[bosockboy]

If the arb awards go higher than they anticipated and they are over....might as well sign a legit starter.

[kazuneko]

Who would you suggest? Really the only FA available is Oswalt and, If you sign him, you exceed the cap and are taxed at 40% in 2013. don't think he is worth the cost. However, next year Hamels, Greinke, Cain and Anibal Sanchez are all free agents. If the Red Sox stay under the cap this year then the tax resets and they can afford to splurge next year.

The implication of your statement -that the Sox are going to be under the cap if they don't make any moves - doesn't match up with credible claims by Peter Gammons that the team is already over the tax limit (something that he apparently got from the front office's accounting department). Unless people are expecting a salary-dump trade the "reset for 2013" strategy doesn't seem viable....

Edited by kazuneko, 15 January 2012 - 10:02 PM.

[TomRicardo]

Couldn't the Sox have offered say Lavarnway, Doubrant and Jacobs and even tell Seattle they could keep the hot prospect they threw in if it came down to it?

No, Seattle has had a hard on for Montero for a while. Blind unadultrated lust.

[Drek717]

The implication of your statement -that the Sox are going to be under the cap if they don't make any moves - doesn't match up with credible claims by Peter Gammons that the team is already over the tax limit (something that he apparently got from the front office's accounting department). Unless people are expecting a salary-dump trade the "reset for 2013" strategy doesn't seem viable....

It really doesn't seem viable if you look at the contracts coming off the books for 2012. The big contracts we have coming up after 2012:
Youks has a $13M option ($0.75M more than his AAV, $1M opt out)
Ortiz might be back in the same FA/arb offer boat, freeing somewhere between $12.5-$15M (whatever his arb number ends up being).
Matsuzaka's contract expires, freeing $10.33M.
Jenks' contract expires, freeing $6.0M.
Scutaro's contract expires, freeing $6.0M.

Meanwhile we'll have the following big arb raises to hand out:
Ellsbury - Arb 3.
Salty/Dan Bard/Andrew Bailey - Arb 2's.

Not to mention any other additions we might make along the way.

Getting under the cap while actually improving next off-season isn't going to be easy. A good chunk of the money we're freeing up next year will either end up in the four arb candidates mentioned above or this team will suck balls in 2012 as all four regress and have tons of holes to fill. Unless we're looking at Middlebrooks, Lavarnway, and Iglesias all being ready to take over at 3B, DH, and SS respectively come 2013 we're either going to see a real talent drop off or remain over the cap with FA answers.

[BCsMightyJoeYoung]

The implication of your statement -that the Sox are going to be under the cap if they don't make any moves - doesn't match up with credible claims by Peter Gammons that the team is already over the tax limit (something that he apparently got from the front office's accounting department). Unless people are expecting a salary-dump trade the "reset for 2013" strategy doesn't seem viable....

What I don't understand is that , IF the Red Sox are going to be over anyways I don't see any point in not signing a guy like Oswald where they have a clear need.

Of course it's possible they truely are comfortable with what they currently have. The news of Matsusaka's possible early return may have been the tipping point.

[JakeRae]

It really doesn't seem viable if you look at the contracts coming off the books for 2012. The big contracts we have coming up after 2012:
Youks has a $13M option ($0.75M more than his AAV, $1M opt out)
Ortiz might be back in the same FA/arb offer boat, freeing somewhere between $12.5-$15M (whatever his arb number ends up being).
Matsuzaka's contract expires, freeing $10.33M.
Jenks' contract expires, freeing $6.0M.
Scutaro's contract expires, freeing $6.0M.

Meanwhile we'll have the following big arb raises to hand out:
Ellsbury - Arb 3.
Salty/Dan Bard/Andrew Bailey - Arb 2's.

Not to mention any other additions we might make along the way.

Getting under the cap while actually improving next off-season isn't going to be easy. A good chunk of the money we're freeing up next year will either end up in the four arb candidates mentioned above or this team will suck balls in 2012 as all four regress and have tons of holes to fill. Unless we're looking at Middlebrooks, Lavarnway, and Iglesias all being ready to take over at 3B, DH, and SS respectively come 2013 we're either going to see a real talent drop off or remain over the cap with FA answers.

I'm seeing roughly $48 million coming off the books via your calculation, before arb raises. If we budget $20 million for raises (very generous) and assume Iglesias and Middlebrooks are ready plus one of Ortiz/Youk being back as the DH at $13 million, that leaves $15 million coming off.

The good news is, in the above scenario, like this offseason, there are not going to be significant needs going into the offseason. The rotation, barring injury, will be set with Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, Bard, and Lackey. The bullpen will be mostly set with Aceves, Melancon, and Bailey returning. (Hopefully Rich Hill returns to form and really solidifies the back end of the pen.) If Kalish can take hold of RF, next offseason could be even less exciting than this offseason has been.

Sometimes we get caught up in how much money this team has committed and the lack of flexibility. I do understand that this can be quite frustrating, but the team has quality players locked up at most positions. If the organization's luck turns around, the team could very well get under the 2013 tax threshold without taking an on field performance hit.

Edited by JakeRae, 16 January 2012 - 02:37 PM.

[OCD SS]

Sometimes we get caught up in how much money this team has committed and the lack of flexibility. I do understand that this can be quite frustrating, but the team has quality players locked up at most positions. If the organization's luck turns around, the team could very well get under the 2013 tax threshold without taking an on field performance hit.

At this point, I'd be interested in knowing why this limit is being imposed; IIRC Lucky had some quote about salary being available if the Sox/ Cherrington had something to add that was worth it ("We told Ben to 'Be bold!'") which implies that the desire to get under the cap is not a hard financial limit. Furthermore, I find it very hard to believe that FSG/Rousch and NESN are suddenly looking at not being profitable based on the current salary expenditures of the team. The only reason the Sox don't have the any financial flexibility at this point is because H/W/L have decided that this year's style is to dress the team in the tightest skinny jeans they could find.

[nvalvo]

I'm seeing roughly $48 million coming off the books via your calculation, before arb raises. If we budget $20 million for raises (very generous) and assume Iglesias and Middlebrooks are ready plus one of Ortiz/Youk being back as the DH at $13 million, that leaves $15 million coming off.

You could likely buy a hell of an SP for c. $12m AAV next year. I'm cautiously in favor of a conservative approach this year if it means good value in the projected buyers' market next year.

In the short run, were I Ben, I would see if Ortiz would bite on a 2/25 type deal to lower the AAV, with an eye to working in Lavarnway as an occasional platoon partner for Ortiz over the course of the deal, if/when Ortiz' tremendous 2011 versus LHP fails to predict future performance.

[JakeRae]

You could likely buy a hell of an SP for c. $12m AAV next year. I'm cautiously in favor of a conservative approach this year if it means good value in the projected buyers' market next year.

In the short run, were I Ben, I would see if Ortiz would bite on a 2/25 type deal to lower the AAV, with an eye to working in Lavarnway as an occasional platoon partner for Ortiz over the course of the deal, if/when Ortiz' tremendous 2011 versus LHP fails to predict future performance.

Would 2/25 really lower the AAV? Is Ortiz due for a raise in arbitration?

On the one hand, most players get raises in arbitration.

On the other hand, Ortiz is the highest paid DH, although also the best. There are no good arbitration comps for Ortiz' production or expected pay. I think, if it goes to arb and the Sox are at 1/12 and Ortiz is at 1/14 or 1/15, the arbitrator sides with the Sox. Of course, it will get settled, probably at 1/13. I don't think a 2 year deal is worth $0.5 million or $1 million in AAV. If Ortiz will take 2/20 or, possibly, 2/22 that could work for everyone. If it's 2/25, the 1 year deal is preferable, even if it ends up on the high end of the options at 1/15.

As for the starting pitcher comment, the only way the Sox are signing a high value starter next offseason is if someone is hurt or if Bard fails as a starter. Even then, it probably also requires them to not be sold on anyone in the farm system. Lackey will be back and will have a rotation slot. They are paying him too much money for too long to not give him a chance once his arm has been fixed. The Sox are unlikely to make a major SP move until the 2014/2015 offseason at the earliest. Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, Bard, and Lackey are all locked up at least that long. They also have some borderline rotation types like Tazawa in the high minors and the possibility of Ranaudo, Barnes, or someone else (I'll add Stroup so EV doesn't feel the need to bring him up) emerging over the next 3 seasons and needing a rotation slot. A 1-year deal for a quality pitcher like Oswalt makes a ton of sense for this year. Thinking about signing starters after this offseason does not. With the overall roster situation, even if there is an injury and they need a SP, it will be on a one year deal barring an obvious career ending injury and you rarely know an injury is career ending until the comeback fails.

Before someone responds with the, "You can never have too much pitching" meme, I am not trying to say they will have enough pitching or that they won't be signing the Vicente Padillas and Aaron Cooks of the world to minor league contracts again. But, you can only have 5 starters on major league contracts entering the season. A healthy rotation next offseason precludes a major starting pitcher signing.

[Sprowl]

Digging Out from Under Bygone Theo (DOUBT).

The poor-me chorus out of the front office is deafening. I hope this is a negotiating tactic for Oswalt, but I fear it is just another count in the indictment for the worst offseason ever.

[Plympton91]

I just don't understand the reasoning, especially after last year, it's like the $10+M DH and several $1.5+M bench players are the necessities they can't live without, but an adequate pitching staff is the luxury they can't afford?

In what universe is the pitching staff inadequate? Back away from the ledge people.

There are more examples of reliever to starter convesions that worked out swimmingly than that failed, Bard will be great as a #4 and Aceves will be fine at #5 until Matsuzaka comes back. People are under rating Doubront and Tazawa as depth as well.

[judyb]

In what universe is the pitching staff inadequate? Back away from the ledge people.

There are more examples of reliever to starter convesions that worked out swimmingly than that failed, Bard will be great as a #4 and Aceves will be fine at #5 until Matsuzaka comes back. People are under rating Doubront and Tazawa as depth as well.

The universe where pitchers get injured and fail, I usually call it the real world. I am unfamiliar with this universe where many pitchers who haven't previously managed to avoid the DL, started a game in 5 years, or had close to no success in the majors mostly pitch well and manage to stay healthy, but I would very much like to live there.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

The universe where pitchers get injured and fail, I usually call it the real world. I am unfamiliar with this universe where many pitchers who haven't previously managed to avoid the DL, started a game in 5 years, or had close to no success in the majors mostly pitch well and manage to stay healthy, but I would very much like to live there.

The 2007 team went into the season with Julian Tavarez as their fifth starter, Kason Gabbard as the Pawtucket Express 6th starter, and fingers crossed that Jon Lester would stay cancer free and be able to contribute something in the second half. And the top four consisted of Beckett coming off an ugly debut season, two 40-year-olds, and a rookie out of Japan. That worked out.

Seems to me that the projected starting five for 2012 should be better positioned than that, with two guys coming off very good years (September struggles not withstanding) and a third a year removed from a CY-caliber season. If we want to draw complete parallels to 2007, I think 2012 Lester = 2007 Beckett, 2012 Beckett = 2007 Schilling, 2012 Buchholz = 2007 Wakefield (as in he should be just fine as long as his back holds up), 2012 Bard = 2007 Matsuzaka (sans hype) and 2012 Aceves = 2007 Tavarez, with 2012 Matsuzaka filling the role of 2007 Lester. I think a case could be made that Padilla/Cook/Silva/Tazawa/Doubront represents more optimistic (certainly more experienced) rotation depth than Gabbard and semi-rushed Buchholz.

Calling this proposed rotation inadequate seems reactionary and hyperbolic, not to mention plain wrong.

Edited by Red(s)HawksFan, 16 January 2012 - 09:48 PM.

[rembrat]

You and Plympton* seem overly omptimistic. As of right now, I consider this the 3rd best rotation in the AL East and I would knock them down a spot if the Jays add another quality guy before spring training. I also put the Indians, Rangers, Angels, and the Tigers ahead of them. So, yea, at best they are middle of the pack and that isn't going to cut it.

*Ever since the Yankees beefed up their rotation he has been rah rahing it up.

[Rough Carrigan]

The 2007 team went into the season with Julian Tavarez as their fifth starter, Kason Gabbard as the Pawtucket Express 6th starter, and fingers crossed that Jon Lester would stay cancer free and be able to contribute something in the second half. And the top four consisted of Beckett coming off an ugly debut season, two 40-year-olds, and a rookie out of Japan. That worked out.

Seems to me that the projected starting five for 2012 should be better positioned than that, with two guys coming off very good years (September struggles not withstanding) and a third a year removed from a CY-caliber season. If we want to draw complete parallels to 2007, I think 2012 Lester = 2007 Beckett, 2012 Beckett = 2007 Schilling, 2012 Buchholz = 2007 Wakefield (as in he should be just fine as long as his back holds up), 2012 Bard = 2007 Matsuzaka (sans hype) and 2012 Aceves = 2007 Tavarez, with 2012 Matsuzaka filling the role of 2007 Lester. I think a case could be made that Padilla/Cook/Silva/Tazawa/Doubront represents more optimistic (certainly more experienced) rotation depth than Gabbard and semi-rushed Buchholz.

Calling this proposed rotation inadequate seems reactionary and hyperbolic, not to mention plain wrong.

Come on. 2007 Wakefield was an innings eater and nothing more. In Buchholz last healthy season he had the second best ERA in the league pitching in a MUCH worse park for pitchers than the guy with the best ERA. If he just does what he did his last healthy year, you have a guy ringing up a sub 2.4 ERA pitching in Fenway Park. Why is it forgetten just how terrific Buchholz was in 2010?

[The Boomer]

The 2007 team went into the season with Julian Tavarez as their fifth starter, Kason Gabbard as the Pawtucket Express 6th starter, and fingers crossed that Jon Lester would stay cancer free and be able to contribute something in the second half. And the top four consisted of Beckett coming off an ugly debut season, two 40-year-olds, and a rookie out of Japan. That worked out.

Seems to me that the projected starting five for 2012 should be better positioned than that, with two guys coming off very good years (September struggles not withstanding) and a third a year removed from a CY-caliber season. If we want to draw complete parallels to 2007, I think 2012 Lester = 2007 Beckett, 2012 Beckett = 2007 Schilling, 2012 Buchholz = 2007 Wakefield (as in he should be just fine as long as his back holds up), 2012 Bard = 2007 Matsuzaka (sans hype) and 2012 Aceves = 2007 Tavarez, with 2012 Matsuzaka filling the role of 2007 Lester. I think a case could be made that Padilla/Cook/Silva/Tazawa/Doubront represents more optimistic (certainly more experienced) rotation depth than Gabbard and semi-rushed Buchholz.

Calling this proposed rotation inadequate seems reactionary and hyperbolic, not to mention plain wrong.

Bingo. Wilson and Ranaudo lurking in the upper levels of the minor leagues could easily be ready, if necessary, as soon as mid-season if everyone ahead of them (Aceves, Padilla, Cook, Silva, Duckworth, Tazawa and Doubront) fails to nail down that #5 starter job. Unless he has another injury setback or regresses to ineffective and disappointing production, Dice-K will get his chance. That seems like better depth than last season and will afford them the chance to be more patient with these still viable prospects who they can stash in the higher minors until they are more ready for the show. It is actually better for the organization and morale that its best prospects aren't unreasonably blocked, if ready for the last starter's job and the bullpen jobs for relievers who might be needed in the 7th inning or sooner, by overpaid veteran pitchers. They must foster developmental patience without stifling opportunities for promotion to the majors.

[Plympton91]

Come on. 2007 Wakefield was an innings eater and nothing more. In Buchholz last healthy season he had the second best ERA in the league pitching in a MUCH worse park for pitchers than the guy with the best ERA. If he just does what he did his last healthy year, you have a guy ringing up a sub 2.4 ERA pitching in Fenway Park. Why is it forgetten just how terrific Buchholz was in 2010?

Exactly. It could be argued that the Red Sox most significant transaction this offseason has been to add what is likely 120 more innings from Buchholz in 2012.

You and Plympton* seem overly omptimistic. As of right now, I consider this the 3rd best rotation in the AL East and I would knock them down a spot if the Jays add another quality guy before spring training. I also put the Indians, Rangers, Angels, and the Tigers ahead of them. So, yea, at best they are middle of the pack and that isn't going to cut it.

*Ever since the Yankees beefed up their rotation he has been rah rahing it up.

O.k.; I disagree, but let's stipulate that your rankings are defensible. Now rank the bullpens and the other 50 percent of the game -- offense. Ellsbury, Pedroia, Gonzalez, Youkilis, Ortiz, and 3 more who project to be at worst league average in Scutaro, Salty/Shoppach, and Sweeney/McDonald. Then there's the Crawford connundrum.

I'll take Ellsbury over Granderson, Pedroia is equal to Cano, Gonzalez is better than Teixeira, Youkilis is equal to ARod at this point, Ortiz is better than anybody NY is going to have hit 5th, I like out catchers better than theirs, I like Scutaro over Jeter, I'll still take Crawford over Gardner. I would like Swisher in RF.

Let's get it started.

Edited by Plympton91, 16 January 2012 - 11:15 PM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Come on. 2007 Wakefield was an innings eater and nothing more. In Buchholz last healthy season he had the second best ERA in the league pitching in a MUCH worse park for pitchers than the guy with the best ERA. If he just does what he did his last healthy year, you have a guy ringing up a sub 2.4 ERA pitching in Fenway Park. Why is it forgetten just how terrific Buchholz was in 2010?

I hope you aren't reading my post as forgetting how good Buchholz was in 2010. I did mention he was a year removed from a CY-caliber season, didn't I? I'm arguing against the idea that this rotation is somehow third-rate and a disaster waiting to happen. In fact, my point is there's more to be optimistic about with the 2012 rotation than there was in 2007, and that team won a freaking World Series.

And I was not trying to make the case that Buchholz is no better than 2007 Wakefield, I was making the point that he's a question mark right now in the same sense that Wakefield was entering 2007 (remember Wake made only five starts in the second half of 2006 due to a back injury). I fully expect Buchholz to be a huge contributor this season, but for now, he's still the guy who hasn't thrown a pitch in a big league game since mid-June.

Edited by Red(s)HawksFan, 16 January 2012 - 11:27 PM.

[Sprowl]

You and Plympton* seem overly omptimistic. As of right now, I consider this the 3rd best rotation in the AL East and I would knock them down a spot if the Jays add another quality guy before spring training. I also put the Indians, Rangers, Angels, and the Tigers ahead of them. So, yea, at best they are middle of the pack and that isn't going to cut it.

*Ever since the Yankees beefed up their rotation he has been rah rahing it up.

Plympton is nothing if not counter-cyclical. He's a true Keynesian at heart.