277 replies to this topic

[Plympton91]

No, of course it's not that simple -- he's assuming the NYYs would always be paying the tax anyway and never be receiving the rebate of their revenue sharing pay-in, but the Sox wouldn't do so, and therefore would always gain that rebate.

Kind of an apples to oranges comparison, but it does show the increased disincentive teams may have to stay under the CBT threshold, rather than exceed it only slightly.

Here's the comparison I was making, I'm going to round off to make the math easier.

The luxury tax threshold is $180 million. The tax rate is 40 percent of the amount over the threshold and by going over the threshold at all a team forfeits a 25% rebate on its revenue sharing.

Team 1 regularly spends $210 million and has a revenue sharing bill of $40 million; they pay $12 million in luxury tax (.4*(210-180)) and give up an $10 million rebate on revenue sharing (.25*40), for a total penalty of $22 million on $30 million of spending (210-180) over the threshold. The effective tax rate on spending over the threshold is 22/30 =73% (instead of 40% under the old regime).

Team 2 regularly spends $185 million on payroll and has a revenue sharing bill of $28 million; they pay $2 million in luxury tax (.4*(185-180)) and give up a $7 million rebate on revenue sharing (.25*28), for a total penalty of $9 million on $5 million of spending (185-180). The effective tax rate on spending over the threshold is 9/5 = 180% (instead of 40% under the old regime).

Thus, I think the general conclusion that teams that had planned to spend way over the cap face a smaller effective tax rate than teams that just barely exceed the cap is the right way to think about it. Yet another aspect of the new CBA is calibrated perfectly to pretty much hurt the Red Sox more than any other team in baseball.

Thinking in terms of marginal tax rates, I think it is even starker. Going $1 over the threshold triggers a fixed cost of $10 million for team 1 and $7 million for team 2.

So, in essence, the marginal tax rate on spending over the cap is 40 percent for Team 1, because no single contract can get them back under the cap.

For team 2, simply trading their starting shortstop who makes $6 million can get them back under the cap. That transforms the fixed cost into a variable cost, because a failure to trade that shortstop means that he actually costs the team $15 million ($6 million salary and $9 million penalty). Hence, the marginal tax rate on that shortstop's salary is 150% (9/6).

Is there anyone who thinks Marco Scutaro is going to be worth $15 million in 2012?

Edited by Plympton91, 28 January 2012 - 12:21 PM.

[Rasputin]

One way to look at this is that if a team has three good, healthy starters, who can win 30 games over .500 collectively, then all that is needed is for the other 8-9 pitchers to pitch .500 ball to start being competitive in the division. Even a couple of dominant starters could do.

If you remember back in the Pedro days some of us did the math to determine that if you took a mediocre team and added a guy as magnificent as Pedro then you were automatically a fringe contender. He makes thirty starts, the team wins 25 of them, you split the rest and you're at 91 wins.

Well, if your three starters pitch 90 games, the team goes 60-30 and you split the rest, you win 96.

That is why I have continually been harping on the fact that John Lackey is/was the problem and laughing at people who lump Lackey and Crawford together.

And that is why it is so important to get a guy who can make thirty starts of average performance, because otherwise we're asking Bard and Aceves to do it and I just don't see that happening.

Edwin Jackson on a one year contract would be, I think, ideal.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

I agree with most of this. The point is that they simply didn't need to have any of these pitchers but if they can figure out a way to improve at a reasonable cost, there is no doubt that Cherington would do it whether or not he is drunk at the time. That's one skill set for a good GM: improve your team without wastefully sacrificing too much. Another is making lemonade out of lemons. That's more difficult but, if it works, much more satisfying and rewarding. In the long run, though, it is most important to scout, sign and develop quality talent. Wasting money trying to compete or in reaction to your competition (particularly the Yankees) is a mistake.

Savin answered for me nicely (thanks)...... My biggest issue is that the signings so far have all been extreme long shots, Jeff Francis just signed a minor league deal, could the sox have gotten someone like him , someone who at least pitched last year? as for Silva, Padilla, Cook and Germano chances are better that they won't even be in Pawtucket's top 3 let alone make the team in Boston. I don't mind taking flyers on one or two of these types , like the sox did with Tony Armas Jr. or Duckworth but to seriously count on any one of them to be a Major League caliber 5th starter is nuts. You say everything would have to go wrong for the sox to need them, but what happened last season? At least last season we had the warm steaming pile of shit out there every 5th day. I'm not sure that any of those four could even put up Lackey type numbers and thats the most damning statement I'll make in this post by far. The sox are one groin pull or back strain away from seriously counting on one of these guys.

When the Yankees did it they took Freddy Garcia who at least pitched in the major leagues the year before, they took a gamble on Bartolo Colon a former Cy Young winner having a little gas left in the tank. They didn't take guys who were below or at league average way back in their prime and make them into reliable starters. Teams have been passing on these guys for years cutting them,salary dumping them etc. etc.

The sox need at least one reliable arm that can eat innings or at least be competitive. Hell I'd rather have Tim Wakefield's depends wearing corpse, than any one of these guys.

As of right now, you have to pencil both Bard and Aceves into the 4 and 5 slots and hope the bullpen can get along well enough till Dice-K returns..

Maybe, Maybe one of these guys throws a few good games in pawtucket and can be called up for a spot start, but I'm not holding my sack counting on any of them.

Why not just let Wakefield compete with these guys in Spring training at least we know what we're getting with Wake (and I can't belive I'm saying it because I don't want him anywhere near this rotation) I would bet money that he's better than any one of them.

Edited by Carl Everetts Therapist, 28 January 2012 - 07:40 PM.

[Plympton91]

I don't understand the concern about Bard moving to the rotation. Name an example of an all-star level reliever who moved to the rotation and didn't at least put up above-average 4th starter numbers.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Savin answered for me nicely (thanks)...... My biggest issue is that the signings so far have all been extreme long shots, Jeff Francis just signed a minor league deal, could the sox have gotten someone like him , someone who at least pitched last year? as for Silva, Padilla, Cook and Germano chances are better that they won't even be in Pawtucket's top 3 let alone make the team in Boston. I don't mind taking flyers on one or two of these types , like the sox did with Tony Armas Jr. or Duckworth but to seriously count on any one of them to be a Major League caliber 5th starter is nuts. You say everything would have to go wrong for the sox to need them, but what happened last season? At least last season we had the warm steaming pile of shit out there every 5th day. I'm not sure that any of those four could even put up Lackey type numbers and thats the most damning statement I'll make in this post by far. The sox are one groin pull or back strain away from seriously counting on one of these guys.

When the Yankees did it they took Freddy Garcia who at least pitched in the major leagues the year before, they took a gamble on Bartolo Colon a former Cy Young winner having a little gas left in the tank. They didn't take guys who were below or at league average way back in their prime and make them into reliable starters. Teams have been passing on these guys for years cutting them,salary dumping them etc. etc.

The sox need at least one reliable arm that can eat innings or at least be competitive. Hell I'd rather have Tim Wakefield's depends wearing corpse, than any one of these guys.

As of right now, you have to pencil both Bard and Aceves into the 4 and 5 slots and hope the bullpen can get along well enough till Dice-K returns..

Maybe, Maybe one of these guys throws a few good games in pawtucket and can be called up for a spot start, but I'm not holding my sack counting on any of them.

Why not just let Wakefield compete with these guys in Spring training at least we know what we're getting with Wake (and I can't belive I'm saying it because I don't want him anywhere near this rotation) I would bet money that he's better than any one of them.

Freddy Garcia started 51 games in the four years prior to signing with NYY, throwing 286 IP with an ERA+ of 92.
Bartolo Colon started 37 games in the four years prior to signing with NYY, throwing 200 IP with an ERA+ of 87.
Jeff Francis started 74 games in the four years prior to signing with CIN, throwing 431 IP with an ERA+ of 90.

Vicente Padilla started 70 games in the four years prior to signing with BOS, throwing 422 IP with an ERA+ of 97.
Aaron Cook started 99 games in the four years prior to signing with BOS, throwing 591 IP with an ERA+ of 101.

Tim Wakefield started 93 games in the four years prior to 2012, throwing 605 IP with an ERA+ of 94.

Those two guys look to be at least as good of an option as Wakefield to be the #5 SP, and better than the other three guys you named. But it's true that I have nothing good to say about the Silva or Maine signings.

I believe the last time the team got an "absolute lock" pitcher as a free agent, it was John Lackey. And that's the most damning statement I'll make in this post, by far.

[Plympton91]

Stats for recent seasons aside, I agree with the thrust of the sentiment that Garcia and Colon were once elite pitchers whereas nobody the Sox signed has that pedigree. Still, it seems that both Cook and Padilla are healthy and candidates to be at least league average. In Cook's case, I think pitching in CO just wears down a pitcher's psyche in ways that are difficult to predict or measure. In Padilla's case, he's got something to prove and the demeaner to have that be just enough. We'll see.

I don't think the bullpen as currently structured is good enough without Aceves, so I hope one of them can step up.

[dynomite]

Right, but you don't have to be a pessimist to see that this whole thing could easily fall apart due to the fact that those pitchers you named pitched 191, 193, 82, 73, 114, 65, 37, 0, 9 and 0 innings of major league ball last year, and the team apparently has limited resources to fix this on the fly.

(In other words the ten starters you named pitched 764 IP combined in 2011. Saying they are going to "mix and match" and find 1000+ effective innings from that group sounds more optimistic than realistic to me.)

You're absolutely right -- that's why I'm only cautiously optimistic. An 86-win season of frustration wouldn't surprise me, nor would a 95-win season and a playoff birth.

Here was generally what I was trying to communicate: in 2011, the Red Sox got the following production from starters not named Beckett, Lester and Buchholz:

472.2 IP
5.71 ERA
1.56 WHIP

Once you wipe the vomit off your screen, I think you'll agree that the back-end of the 2011 Red Sox pitching staff set a pretty low bar. Yet we scored enough runs to remain competitive despite the cover-your-eyes pitching: that team STILL managed to end up with a pythag of 94 wins.

94 wins!

Heading into 2012, we don't need too many breaks to improve upon that performance:

1) The Top 3: Buchholz only pitched 80 innings last year, and a likely regression from Beckett will be somewhat offset by an improvement from Lester. It's hard to see this group being significantly worse than it was in 2011.

2) The bullpen: Yes, we'll miss Papelbon, Bard, and Aceves. But it's not as if our bullpen was flawless -- their 3.67 ERA overall ranked 13th in MLB last year. Some of that was artificially inflated by the sheer number of innings logged in relief of aborted starts, but Wheeler (4.38 ERA), Albers (4.78), and Jenks (6.32) shouldn't be too hard to replace. The biggest question will be whether Bailey can remain healthy -- if he can, the bullpen should be fine.

3) #4 and #5: Last year, here were the stats for our nominal 3rd, 4th, and 5th starters (by number of games started):

3. Lackey: 28 GS, 6.41 ERA
4. Wakefield: 23 GS, 5.31 ERA (as starter)
5. Miller: 12 GS, 5.55 ERA (as starter)


Again, we're talking about truly epic, spectacular suck. We're replacing 500 IP of 5.71 ERA. Even Aaron Cook's 6.03 ERA or John Maine's 6.13 ERA last year would have been an improvement upon, say, Lackey's 6.41, or Weiland's 7.66.

And to this point:

how does Padilla/Cook/Silva/Germano/Tazawa/Miller/Doubront look any better than last year's depth of: Duckworth/Armas/Millwood/Miller/Doubront/Wakefield etc.

It looks better because the 2012 list begins with Bard and Aceves. If the two of them can give us just 250 IP of 4.50 ERA baseball, for example, that would be a dramatic improvement upon their 2011 versions. The bar is pretty low.

[The Gray Eagle]

I can't wait to get my new replica t-shirt in celebration of the Red Sox most important offseason acquisition:

Edited by The Gray Eagle, 03 February 2012 - 10:24 PM.

[redsox2020]

They say the best trades are often the ones you don't make. If you apply that same line of thinking to free agent signings, we've had a decent off season. Dodged way more bullets than in the past.

[Doctor G]

They say the best trades are often the ones you don't make. If you apply that same line of thinking to free agent signings, we've had a decent off season. Dodged way more bullets than in the past.

I'd rather have a good last week of July than a good off-season. Performance beats potential for player acquisition basis.

[PrometheusWakefield]

I can't wait to get my new replica t-shirt in celebration of the Red Sox most important offseason acquisition:

Your pic is broken. Or was that the joke?

I'd say trading our totally average, acceptable contract starting shortstop for nothing to clear salary cap room to sign a starting pitcher and then not signing a starting pitcher makes this officially the worst offseason since at least the year we lost Roger Clemens.

[RedOctober3829]

Heyman pens an article pointing at Liverpool as the reason why Henry did not spend much on the Red Sox this offseason.
http://www.cbssports...714192/34770347

[Clears Cleaver]

Heyman pens an article pointing at Liverpool as the reason why Henry did not spend much on the Red Sox this offseason.
http://www.cbssports...714192/34770347

That article reeks of an agent spoon feeding him to try and pressure the Sox to raise their offer on Oswalt or another player (Cuban guys). And, shockingly, Heyman neglected to include the $15M bump in cash outlay to Adrian Gonzalez, etc

[Doug Beerabelli]

Any truth to the rumor Adrian will be sold to Liverpool to play middle back, and the Sox will use the transfer fee to purchase another replacement level utility infielder?

[reggiecleveland]

That article reeks of an agent spoon feeding him to try and pressure the Sox to raise their offer on Oswalt or another player (Cuban guys). And, shockingly, Heyman neglected to include the $15M bump in cash outlay to Adrian Gonzalez, etc

Or that it could be it is true.

It is laughable that ever negative sory about the Sox is by somebody with an agenda. It does not seem unlikely that JWH is more interested in his new toy. The outlay of money has been much different for Ben thanit was for Theo, that can't be denied, and the Ss starting pitching situation is bad, only luck can solve those problems.

[OttoC]

Maury Brown of The Biz of Baseball has this to say about the 2012-16 CBA:

The Competitive Balance Tax structure under the 2006 Basic Agreement will be modified so that
a team that moves below the threshold will be treated as going over for the first time when it
next exceeds the threshold.

I am interpreting this to mean that if the Red Sox stay below the threshold in 2012, their level will be reset and they would be taxed at the 17.5% rate if they exceed it in 2013.

If that is the case, then it would be a wise business decision to stay under the threshold this year because the club will be facing a major rebuilding process in 2103-14: Ortiz (possible/probable 2012 FA), Matsuzaka 2013 FA, Youkilis 2013 club option, Jenks (2-13 FA), Bailey 2013 arbitration, Bard 2013 arbitration, Ellsbury (2013 arbitration, Saltalamacchia 2013 FA, Ross 2013 FA, Lester 2014 (club option), Iglesias 2014 FA, Sweeney 2013 FA, Shoppach 2013 FA, Aceves 2013 arbitration, Melancon 2013 arbitration (if super-2), Aviles 2013 FA...and there may be others on the 40-man roster.

Obviously, some salaries will be shed by then but they still have to deal with long-term contracts for some players and replacements for others. Also, this will be moot if the club's previous excesses are grandfathered in.

One possible justification for the long-term Crawford contract is that they thought they could spin him off after a couple of years.

[Toe Nash]

Or that it could be it is true.

It is laughable that ever negative sory about the Sox is by somebody with an agenda. It does not seem unlikely that JWH is more interested in his new toy. The outlay of money has been much different for Ben thanit was for Theo, that can't be denied, and the Ss starting pitching situation is bad, only luck can solve those problems.

What the hell are you talking about?

Red Sox Payroll by year:

• 2011: $163,822,475
• 2010: $168,109,833
• 2009: $121,745,999
• 2008: $133,390,035
• 2007: $143,026,214
• 2006: $120,099,824
• 2005: $123,505,125

In 2012 it's already projected to be around $180 mil. They bought Liverpool in October of '10 and then traded for A-Gon, signed him to a huge deal AND signed Crawford to a huge deal. They don't have tons of money floating around this year because it's already been spent. They haven't spent much new money this year, but A-gon's contract increased by a huge chunk and a really big reason is becuse every dollar they spend costs another 40 cents and it's just not worth it.

Regardless of whether they are two different budgets and one shouldn't affect the other (which seems likely -- FSG has owned a NASCAR team since 07 and that hasn't seemed to affect anything), the payroll has increased by $15 mil since they bought Liverpool and there's no evidence that it has hurt the Sox ability to spend up to and over the luxury tax.

Heyman's article is completely awful. It understates how much the Red sox have "spent" this year by only counting new contracts, it misrepresents how the EPL transfer system works (Liverpool has spent $180 mil to buy new players, but they also got money back by selling their former players and their wage bill [essentially payroll] has dropped as well) and it insinuates that FSG's budgets are all intertwined without any evidence that spending money on one team really affects the others.

Edit: Also Heyman has a history of conveniently "reporting" stories on Boras clients when it suits them in contract negotiations. He's notorious for it and it's completely plausible that this is an example of that.

Edited by Toe Nash, 09 February 2012 - 04:25 PM.

[Doctor G]

Heyman is not above tweaking the Red Sox or the Mets. He is obviously a Boras shill. He is Francesa lite, if such a thing is possible.

Edited by Doctor G, 09 February 2012 - 06:15 PM.

[jon abbey]

Heyman is not above tweaking the Red Sox or the Mets. He is obviously a Boras shill. He is Francesa lite, if such a thing is possible.

In case anyone doubts this at all, this piece from the other day is just so blatant. I wonder if he gets a monthly paycheck from Boras or just a lump amount per column like this:

http://www.cbssports...714192/34742697

[reggiecleveland]

Theo could always spend some money to solve problems. Mind you Theo never had to deal with the mess he made with Lackey and Crawford.

[soxfan121]

Carroll & Suarez were signed AFTER Gonzalez & Crawford - in January of 2011. Without those two enormous figures, Heyman's point is not as "strong", and as mentioned, Carroll was signed after Torres was sold by LFC for $50M - subsidizing all of Carroll's fee and most of Suarez's.

IOW, listing figures is quite useless without context.

[SoxFanInPdx]

Heyman pens an article pointing at Liverpool as the reason why Henry did not spend much on the Red Sox this offseason.
http://www.cbssports...714192/34770347

Easily one of the laziest articles I've read in a while. Goes to show how media outlets will publish things without doing any research.

[reggiecleveland]

Heyman does like to piss people off, but his points about the pitching staff and Ss are true. The Sox counting pennies is new.

Carroll & Suarez were signed AFTER Gonzalez & Crawford - in January of 2011. Without those two enormous figures, Heyman's point is not as "strong"

What if your point is since those signings he has not wanted to spend for the Sox? Had he signed the bag of shit from Tampa after he signed a bunch of expensive soccer players that would be better to disprove Heyman no? Just because we don't want it to be true to doesn't mean it absolutely can't be true.

[dynomite]

In case anyone doubts this at all, this piece from the other day is just so blatant. I wonder if he gets a monthly paycheck from Boras or just a lump amount per column like this:

http://www.cbssports...714192/34742697

This is pure gold.

While Ibanez hit 20 home runs last year, he has the added issue of never having been a regular DH. Which is what they need.

He can hit AND still field a position!?? BANISH HIM!

[Snodgrass'Muff]

This is pure gold.



He can hit AND still field a position!?? BANISH HIM!

I enjoyed the repeated use of the term "sweetheart" to describe him.

[Toe Nash]

Heyman does like to piss people off, but his points about the pitching staff and Ss are true. The Sox counting pennies is new.



What if your point is since those signings he has not wanted to spend for the Sox? Had he signed the bag of shit from Tampa after he signed a bunch of expensive soccer players that would be better to disprove Heyman no? Just because we don't want it to be true to doesn't mean it absolutely can't be true.

Just stop. He is spending almost $20 million more on the Red Sox this year than he did before he bought Liverpool. This is fact. The timing of the specific signings is unimportant since they were likely budgeted for previously. The Sox had targeted Gonzalez and Crawford for a while and likely planned to make big splashes with Liverpool once they bought the team. There is simply no evidence to support Heyman's main argument that Henry spent "too much" on Liverpool to the neglect of the Red Sox.

[941827]

The cherry on top.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

With the Dentist back in town; this thread's question is finally, and definitively, answered.