19 replies to this topic

[TOleary25]

Source: Red Sox expect to go over luxury tax threshold

Based on projections from various sources, they are already very close to the $178 mil mark. As the article notes, if the Sox go over the tax in 2013 as well they will be penalized at a 50 percent rate. If they stay under the $178 mil mark next year they would be penalized at a 17.5 percent tax rate in 2014. It's also worth noting that the luxury tax threshold increases to $189 mil in 2014.

Looking at 2013, there are four major contracts that come off the books. Using Speier's numbers, the total AAV coming off the books between Ortiz ($14M approx), Scutaro ($5.7M), Jenks ($6M), and Daisuke ($8.7M) is $34.4 mil. So that puts the Sox rougly around $144 mil with the current roster. This number doesn't take in potential raises through arbitration, with Ellsbury and Salty probably seeing the biggest impact. Let's say thats another $10 mil which brings the number up to $154 mil. That leaves about $24 mil to get to that luxury threshold number.

Now these numbers are very rough, but it does show that the Sox could bring in a Kuroda or Cuddyer this year and not be pressed against that threshold in 2013. Another thing to note, if Lackey's option kicks in he could probably be traded since that contract may not look as bad with the vesting option included.

[erb]

If this ownership group even takes the luxury tax into consideration than shame on them. Another 3rd place finish isn't going to make anyone around here happy that they saved some money on luxury tax.

[threecy]

If this ownership group even takes the luxury tax into consideration than shame on them. Another 3rd place finish isn't going to make anyone around here happy that they saved some money on luxury tax.

And will another winning season 3rd place finish result in Fenway Park being empty and NESN having zero ratings? You may lose some pink hats, but do they really have *that* much to lose?

Edited by threecy, 15 December 2011 - 07:11 AM.

[LeoCarrillo]

I like the idea of being under the luxury tax, as any team of cost-controlled homegrowns vs. top-bid FA signings suggests more brains/less fatbody on the part of the front office.

But really, let's say we go over the threshhold by $10 million the next two seasons, we'll take a luxury hit of $4M and $5M (at 40 and 50 percent). Does ownership really care about $4 million -- or, to put it another way, just a bit more than one month of Gonzo's salary? And, more importantly to fans, would that $4M hit on top of, say, a $188 million payroll really prohibit them from plugging a hole at the trade deadline? Doubt it.

MFY going $30M over and taking annual hits of $15M should be a discouragement to spending (let's hope). But for around $3M or $4M in a luxury hit for the Sox, especially on the heels of the 2011 collapse, ownership should stop toeing that line and just step over. Ideally for someone useful, like Madson at around $7M per.

[untilthebombs]

If they can/could get Madson for $7MM they will/would.

[untilthebombs]

FWIW, my impression is that the luxury tax really isn't the focus here, per say. Limiting spending to free up future monies is. If the right player for the right contract becomes available, they'll pounce.

[LeoCarrillo]

FWIW, my impression is that the luxury tax really isn't the focus here, per say. Limiting spending to free up future monies is. If the right player for the right contract becomes available, they'll pounce.

Absolutely. And it's prudent, too, considering we've got Ellsbury and Youk due for raises in 2014 and Lester in 2015. And Lackey's still on the books heavy for '14 (ugh).

Keep payroll down now and maybe get Andre Ethier next winter if Reddick/Kalish don't pan in RF. Bite the bullet financially and go for it in '13, especially if you're convinced Ells is adios thereafter.

[trotshelmet]

Absolutely. And it's prudent, too, considering we've got Ellsbury and Youk due for raises in 2014 and Lester in 2015. And Lackey's still on the books heavy for '14 (ugh).

Keep payroll down now and maybe get Andre Ethier next winter if Reddick/Kalish don't pan in RF. Bite the bullet financially and go for it in '13, especially if you're convinced Ells is adios thereafter.

I agree with the main point here, but I am not sure that I see Youk getting a big contract - or even much of a raise in 14. Chance are he will be DHing or not playing full seasons at 3rd. With WMB and Lavarnway at the door, it might be the financially prudent thing to do to part ways. Of course, this all depends on how Youk, WMB and Lavarnway do in the coming 2 years.

[cptcarl]

Absolutely. And it's prudent, too, considering we've got Ellsbury and Youk due for raises in 2014 and Lester in 2015. And Lackey's still on the books heavy for '14 (ugh).

Keep payroll down now and maybe get Andre Ethier next winter if Reddick/Kalish don't pan in RF. Bite the bullet financially and go for it in '13, especially if you're convinced Ells is adios thereafter.

Obtaining a premier outfielder seems like it will require freeing up some salary. I think accepting the reality that the Carl Crawford signing was a blunder even BEFORE last season, and that the likelihood that he will be more than an average left fielder is pretty low going forward, would be a start. My hope is that he rebounds this year to the point that we can literally give him away to someone, salary and all (OK we might have to pay some), and then, buoyed by that addition by subtraction, go out and sign a better corner outfielder. I can't see this happening this off-season. And furthermore, I find all the comments on the main board that declare this assessment of Carl Crawford's value as too pessimistic to be entirely unconvincing.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Obtaining a premier outfielder seems like it will require freeing up some salary. I think accepting the reality that the Carl Crawford signing was a blunder even BEFORE last season, and that the likelihood that he will be more than an average left fielder is pretty low going forward, would be a start. My hope is that he rebounds this year to the point that we can literally give him away to someone, salary and all (OK we might have to pay some), and then, buoyed by that addition by subtraction, go out and sign a better corner outfielder. I can't see this happening this off-season. And furthermore, I find all the comments on the main board that declare this assessment of Carl Crawford's value as too pessimistic to be entirely unconvincing.

I wouldn't worry about his defense, his range is very limited in LF. If Bobby V has any type of brain and wants to shake things up, Crawford needs to be in RF. Just remember that this team has had great off seasons the past 3 years, and that has gotten them absolutely no where. There is also two wild card spots instead of one now, I believe that starts in 2013 though, not 100% sure on that rule. This is the time of year where people can really get a good bargin, a guy like an Oswalt or an Edwin Jackson could be had one a 1-2 year deal to establish more value. Madson, if he can be had on a 1yr/7mil contract should be picked up. Beltran is still out there, Ross is still out there, Kalish could be put in as the LF of the future still (if Crawford gets shifted to RF as he should)

[MikeM]

This is the time of year where people can really get a good bargin, a guy like an Oswalt or an Edwin Jackson could be had one a 1-2 year deal to establish more value. Madson, if he can be had on a 1yr/7mil contract should be picked up. Beltran is still out there, Ross is still out there, Kalish could be put in as the LF of the future still (if Crawford gets shifted to RF as he should)

There's still a ton of money out there waiting to be spent. If anything, this is the time of year when the teams that fell short on Plan A start throwing $$ at Plan B.

3 of the 5 players you have listed there are Boras clients, who regardless of the all the annual "no really, THIS time his guy/guys are taking value deals!", probably hasn't even broke a sweat yet (the Papelbon signing that kicked off the winter was out of his control). Seeing his clients hanging around after the initial rush is just business as usual, and none of those players are being had this winter on 1 year deals. Same on Oswalt for that matter too.

I guess Ross potentially ends up being had on a 1 year deal. He's generating enough interest thus far where it's probably not going to be a cheap one though, and RF is pretty much the last place i'd want to see us spending what little money/flexibility we seemingly have atm.

[LeoCarrillo]

I'd be shocked if they invest any real money/years in RF. I guess you could get Ross for a year and broom Darnell. But it seems they'll score enough runs to carry Reddick/Kalish and see if either's the real deal..

The real need to add offense will be next year or maybe '13 when Papi's toast and Iglesias is up. Until April, Ben's probably just looking through the Clearance bin and seeing which starters or relievers go on sale. Otherwise, see if Bard or Ace stick in the rotation, put the other in the pen. Hope Melancon, Jenks (or Bard) can close. Look for a Freddy Garcia (Saunders?) and hope Dice-K gives you 15 starts. Then, there's always the trade deadline to add an arm.

It's a decent approach when 90 wins probably gets you the 2nd wild card. Just not as much of a safety net as we're used to.

[Tyrone Biggums]

There's still a ton of money out there waiting to be spent. If anything, this is the time of year when the teams that fell short on Plan A start throwing $$ at Plan B.

3 of the 5 players you have listed there are Boras clients, who regardless of the all the annual "no really, THIS time his guy/guys are taking value deals!", probably hasn't even broke a sweat yet (the Papelbon signing that kicked off the winter was out of his control). Seeing his clients hanging around after the initial rush is just business as usual, and none of those players are being had this winter on 1 year deals. Same on Oswalt for that matter too.

I guess Ross potentially ends up being had on a 1 year deal. He's generating enough interest thus far where it's probably not going to be a cheap one though, and RF is pretty much the last place i'd want to see us spending what little money/flexibility we seemingly have atm.

Just because they are Boras clients does not mean they will automatically get 10 million a year. Who else needs a closer? The market has dried up, and in this case Boras has more often than not advises his client to sign a 1 year deal to establish his market for next year. Just because someone wants something does not mean they'll get it. Madson will not get 10 million because the market now doesn't dictate it. Oswalt probably will, however, I could absolutely see Jackson sucking it up with a 1 year 8 million deal to get more traction for next year. Oswalt will probably be had for 1 year 10-11 million...no one will go long term on someone with a bad physical issue (back). Take the Jimmy Rollins situation, he was hellbent that he wanted 5 years, and ended up settling on 3.

[MikeM]

Just because they are Boras clients does not mean they will automatically get 10 million a year. Who else needs a closer? The market has dried up, and in this case Boras has more often than not advises his client to sign a 1 year deal to establish his market for next year. Just because someone wants something does not mean they'll get it. Madson will not get 10 million because the market now doesn't dictate it. Oswalt probably will, however, I could absolutely see Jackson sucking it up with a 1 year 8 million deal to get more traction for next year. Oswalt will probably be had for 1 year 10-11 million...no one will go long term on someone with a bad physical issue (back). Take the Jimmy Rollins situation, he was hellbent that he wanted 5 years, and ended up settling on 3.

Didn't we basically already have this argument a few weeks ago, over the 3/$30m you claimed Cuddyer wasn't getting either?

None of those guys are Jimmy Rollins either, who essentially was/is a past his prime player trying to Derek Jeter himself a contract out of Philly. With the exception of Ross, every one of those guys presents top-type value now, and the chances they only generate 1 year "reestablishment" interest atm is a laughable proposition at best imo. Born more out of the need/desire to start from a "what would be in the Red Sox's best interests here?" perspective then anything else. Oswalt and 28 year old Jackson are representative of a universal need for pretty much EVERYBODY, yet they are only going to generate/get 1 year deals? I mean, do you really believe that?

It's generally the same story with a Boras client or 2 every winter. Like i asked in another thread, when was the last time one of his well positioned free agent clients was forced into taking a value deal? It may or may not be automatic, but history there makes a pretty strong argument that it indeed is, or at least tends to play out as close as you can get to automatic. Especially if/when he's going on record as stating the money will be there, while seeing the much bigger surrounding picture then either of us are capable of.

Assuming we even have $7m to consider spending on one player atm, i'd prepare to spend a long and cold winter waiting on Madson at that 1/$7m if i were you. That's not happening. Period.

[Tyrone Biggums]

Didn't we basically already have this argument a few weeks ago, over the 3/$30m you claimed Cuddyer wasn't getting either?

None of those guys are Jimmy Rollins either, who essentially was/is a past his prime player trying to Derek Jeter himself a contract out of Philly. With the exception of Ross, every one of those guys presents top-type value now, and the chances they only generate 1 year "reestablishment" interest atm is a laughable proposition at best imo. Born more out of the need/desire to start from a "what would be in the Red Sox's best interests here?" perspective then anything else. Oswalt and 28 year old Jackson are representative of a universal need for pretty much EVERYBODY, yet they are only going to generate/get 1 year deals? I mean, do you really believe that?

It's generally the same story with a Boras client or 2 every winter. Like i asked in another thread, when was the last time one of his well positioned free agent clients was forced into taking a value deal? It may or may not be automatic, but history there makes a pretty strong argument that it indeed is, or at least tends to play out as close as you can get to automatic. Especially if/when he's going on record as stating the money will be there, while seeing the much bigger surrounding picture then either of us are capable of.

Assuming we even have $7m to consider spending on one player atm, i'd prepare to spend a long and cold winter waiting on Madson at that 1/$7m if i were you. That's not happening. Period.

Right... but where is that massive 3/45-3/50 contract for Beltran? The latest reports are mentioning that he might have a 2 year deal on the table. Its tough to get the price up when the Giants/Sox/Yankees aren't really involved. Oswalt won't get 3-4 years neither will Jackson. One is extremely inconsistent and the other has a bad back and coming off of a down season. So those two names are not far fetched to have to settle for a 1-2 year deal, neither is Madson. Every single report I've seen on Oswalt has mentioned 1-2 years due to his physical issues...but hey if someone is stupid enough to throw 3-4 years at these guys then go ahead. You have to look at who has a need and who has the money to spend. Is Boras better served putting Jackson on a short term deal where he can further establish value (and yes he could absolutely benefit from it) and having him go out next year and claim more money? A few years back a similar situation happened with Kevin Millwood and the Braves, it ended up being resolved with a 1 year 7 million dollar deal in Cleveland. We shall see what happens though...

About Cuddyer, as I said before at 7-8 million I would have had no issues, I'm glad that Colorado ended up paying more than what I was comfortable with. Only a handful of teams have money left and most of those have Right Fielders already. Madson has no market that is willing to pay him the 4 years 44 million...who needs a closer besides the Sox that actually have the money? Its a saving face move, he would have made around 6 if he accepted arbitration, seven shows that Boras got his client a better deal. He has half a season as a closer under his belt, no one will pay him what Bell got let alone Paps. (Which btw, I feel Bell was a pretty big overpay). So who needs a closer that has money to blow??

PS: I'm glad Papi is our DH next year, absolute better fit than Beltran would have been in that spot

Edited by Tyrone Biggums, 18 December 2011 - 10:48 PM.

[MikeM]

Right... but where is that massive 3/45-3/50 contract for Beltran?

Whoa, slow down there lol. If you read back, those massive contract claims was basically all you from the start. I was the one claiming the need to see where the money trail led there before committing a similar amount down on Ortiz. That Ortiz actually took arby clouds my previous opinion a tad, but it's not like we are not out of those woods there just yet (imo). I for one need to see it made official that Ben and co are not going to get overly-cute with a second year commitment.

Oswalt may not get 4 years, but he's getting 2 at an absolute minimum. Expect the market to pick up on Jackson quite a bit after the Darvish situation plays itself out too, with Boras using whatever contract he gets there as additional leverage. He'll get a minimum of 3 imo.

So who needs a closer that has money to blow??

See, this is the thing people are overlooking with Madson imo. Just because we can't see something right now doesn't mean it can't/won't exist in the near future. A trade here or a failed signing there potentially opens up a new door at every turn. Madson isn't some marginal scrub needing to reestablish himself, he's one of the better closers in the game who would provide an upgrade to most bullpens out there. As we've seen time and time again, it only takes that one team with an itch to improve. With the smart money there, imo, being on Boras both finding and exploiting it. Like he always does.

[SpruceTrap]

Couldn't help but notice there was a story on Bleacher Report about how we'll have the highest salary in team history even if we don't add any more free agents. The salary figures look correct to me, kind of makes me money if we have any money left to spend.

http://bleacherrepor...history-in-2012

[Tyrone Biggums]

See, this is the thing people are overlooking with Madson imo. Just because we can't see something right now doesn't mean it can't/won't exist in the near future. A trade here or a failed signing there potentially opens up a new door at every turn. Madson isn't some marginal scrub needing to reestablish himself, he's one of the better closers in the game who would provide an upgrade to most bullpens out there. As we've seen time and time again, it only takes that one team with an itch to improve. With the smart money there, imo, being on Boras both finding and exploiting it. Like he always does.

So what stops Boras from convincing a team like the Yankees to jettison their 1st baseman so Fielder gets that 7 to 8 year contract that hes wanted? You make it seem like he runs the game, however, things are a bit different than they were 5 years ago. He's still the best at his job, but he cannot make anything he wants happen. There isn't a market currently for Madson so why would Boston bid against themselves for him? I can't really think of another team besides maybe Texas (since they love collecting end of the game relievers), that would pay Madson even close to what he wants.

If Oswalt gets 3 years, I will be absolutely floored. In regards to Beltran you were willing to go 3 years, but that discussion is for the Papi vs Beltran thread. I do think that we can all agree that Ortiz accepting arbitration was the best outcome for everyone involved.

I understand your logic on Jackson, however either his AAV will come down or he'll settle for less years. The Yankees or Red Sox need to be in on the bidding for anything to happen with a Boras client, unless its a slam dunk like A-Rod. Maybe he'll have to settle for 2 years and an option, I just really don't think that anyone wants to pay the initial asking price on a guy with his track record, Darvish has zero impact here since there were only 4 known bids for his services. Once again though, we will agree to disagree on these things.

[MikeM]

If Oswalt gets 3 years, I will be absolutely floored. In regards to Beltran you were willing to go 3 years, but that discussion is for the Papi vs Beltran thread. I do think that we can all agree that Ortiz accepting arbitration was the best outcome for everyone involved.

I was willing to go on 3 on Beltran if/when up against the prospect of going 2 on Papi, but yeah.

Oswalt went on record today as stating he'd come down off his 3 year demand and take 1. Not that i expect any takers, mind you.

Well, outside maybe the Marlins, who may be stupid/desperate enough to give him his non-pay cut $15-16m over 1. If/when that's not there for him though, he'll end up going with the best 2 year offer he sees on the table imo.

[walkoffblast]

There was an interesting sentence in the article on ESPN.com about the Sox and the Yankees paying the luxury tax this year:

As an added incentive for the high-spenders to decrease payroll, if they get under the threshold they will become eligible to get back some of the money they contribute in revenue sharing.

This may shed some light on the desire to try hard to get under the cap. John Henry has certainly made his distaste for revenue sharing clear. I looked for some more details on this and found a Globe article that included this:

The rate that a team is taxed on the dollars it goes over the luxury tax can be reset to 17 percent if it is below the luxury tax for one season, but the real savings come in revenue sharing reimbursement. The new CBA decrees that 15 large-market teams, including the Sox, are prohibited from receiving initial revenue sharing dollars -- MLB teams must put a percentage of their local revenue (it was 31 percent under the old CBA) into a pool that is distributed evenly to all 30 MLB clubs. Beginning in 2013 the large-market clubs that don't exceed the luxury tax threshold will be "rebated" some percentage of their revenue sharing contribution, with the percentage rising to a 100 percent in 2016.

That is going to be significant money and is likely why even the Yankees seem to be considering the possible benefits of getting under the cap. It is possible the Sox could still go over this year, but they aren't likely to do it based on long-term commitments because MLB may have effectively created an unofficial salary cap starting in 2013.

Edited by walkoffblast, 24 December 2011 - 11:11 AM.