Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Updated 2013 Red Sox Payroll


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
24 replies to this topic

#1 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16,625 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:46 PM

Scott Lauber just posted this. They still are under the luxury tax by $18 million if these are accurate numbers.

Of course, with more than two weeks until the start of spring training, the Sox still may add a lefty-hitting outfielder/first baseman. And players not yet eligible for arbitration still must have their contracts renewed, a formality since all are under team control. For this exercise, we will reasonably estimate those players' salaries at $500,000. All other salaries are listed for the purposes of their impact on the $178 million luxury tax threshold.

Starting pitchers ($43.75 million): John Lackey ($16.5 million), Ryan Dempster ($13.25 million), Clay Buchholz ($7.5 million), Jon Lester ($6 million), Felix Doubront ($500,000).

Relief pitchers ($26.99 million): Joel Hanrahan ($7.04 million), Koji Uehara ($4.25 million), Andrew Bailey ($4.1 million), Craig Breslow ($3.125 million), Alfredo Aceves ($2.65 million), Daniel Bard ($1.8625 million), Franklin Morales ($1.4875 million), Andrew Miller ($1.475 million), Junichi Tazawa ($500,000), Clayton Mortensen ($500,000).

Catchers ($8.1 million): Jarrod Saltalamacchia ($4.5 million), David Ross ($3.1 million), Ryan Lavarnway ($500,000).

Infielders/DH ($37.9 million): David Ortiz ($13 million), Stephen Drew ($9.5 million), Dustin Pedroia ($6.80 million), Mike Napoli ($5 million), Jose Iglesias ($2.1 million), Will Middlebrooks ($500,000), Pedro Ciriaco ($500,000), Mauro Gomez ($500,000).

Outfielders ($28 million): Shane Victorino ($13 million), Jacoby Ellsbury ($9 million), Jonny Gomes ($5 million), Ryan Kalish ($500,000), Daniel Nava ($500,000).

Additional expenses (approximately $15.5 million): Benefits ($10 million), other 40-man roster players ($1.5 million), payment to Dodgers ($3.9 million).

Total: Approximately $160.24 million

http://bostonherald....ox_payroll_2013

#2 Clears Cleaver


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,394 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:51 PM

I wish my corporate benefits were worth $400k/year. Per diems are nice!

#3 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16,859 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:36 PM

They probably want some breathing room for Napoli's incentives, so they really only have about $10 million to play with or so, right?

#4 Koufax

  • 1,906 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:51 PM

I'm sure that season ticket holders will get a refund distribution to compensate them for the lack of talent that they have signed up to watch.

#5 Red(s)HawksFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,068 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:54 PM

They probably want some breathing room for Napoli's incentives, so they really only have about $10 million to play with or so, right?


Probably. But we're presuming they'd be unwilling to go over the tax limit, which may not be the case. They got under last season, so their penalty percentage is reset. Now the only benefit of staying under is the revenue sharing rebate. If the potential tax penalty plus rebate lost can be recovered in post-season revenues, they might forgo staying under in order to get the missing piece they need. Assuming they are at a point where all they need is just one piece to put them over the top, of course.

Only variable would be the additional cost of said piece beyond the cash...the prospects. I'd expect they'd continue to try to protect the prospects they think are vital to future years, even if it means not pulling the trigger on a GFIN-type trade.

#6 seantoo


  • toots his own horn award winner


  • 1,261 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:16 PM

Scott Lauber just posted this. They still are under the luxury tax by $18 million if these are accurate numbers.

Of course, with more than two weeks until the start of spring training, the Sox still may add a lefty-hitting outfielder/first baseman. And players not yet eligible for arbitration still must have their contracts renewed, a formality since all are under team control. For this exercise, we will reasonably estimate those players' salaries at $500,000. All other salaries are listed for the purposes of their impact on the $178 million luxury tax threshold.

Starting pitchers ($43.75 million): John Lackey ($16.5 million), Ryan Dempster ($13.25 million), Clay Buchholz ($7.5 million), Jon Lester ($6 million), Felix Doubront ($500,000).

Relief pitchers ($26.99 million): Joel Hanrahan ($7.04 million), Koji Uehara ($4.25 million), Andrew Bailey ($4.1 million), Craig Breslow ($3.125 million), Alfredo Aceves ($2.65 million), Daniel Bard ($1.8625 million), Franklin Morales ($1.4875 million), Andrew Miller ($1.475 million), Junichi Tazawa ($500,000), Clayton Mortensen ($500,000).

Catchers ($8.1 million): Jarrod Saltalamacchia ($4.5 million), David Ross ($3.1 million), Ryan Lavarnway ($500,000).

Infielders/DH ($37.9 million): David Ortiz ($13 million), Stephen Drew ($9.5 million), Dustin Pedroia ($6.80 million), Mike Napoli ($5 million), Jose Iglesias ($2.1 million), Will Middlebrooks ($500,000), Pedro Ciriaco ($500,000), Mauro Gomez ($500,000).

Outfielders ($28 million): Shane Victorino ($13 million), Jacoby Ellsbury ($9 million), Jonny Gomes ($5 million), Ryan Kalish ($500,000), Daniel Nava ($500,000).

Additional expenses (approximately $15.5 million): Benefits ($10 million), other 40-man roster players ($1.5 million), payment to Dodgers ($3.9 million).

Total: Approximately $160.24 million

http://bostonherald....ox_payroll_2013

 
I have my own spreadsheet covering this, using Cotts Contracts as my source of information. I break the team down into four parts; positional starters, rotation, bench & bullpen.
 
I have the postional starters @ $69.50 (Although I'm using Salty at catcher which is questionable).
The rotation is set @ $47.04,
the bench is NOT set @ $12.64 (Kalish & Nava, Ciaraco, Ross and Lavarnway)
finally the bullpen is @ $23.25 (But Bard $1.86 & Miller $1.48) are not included on the 7 man staff.
 
A total of $148.40 M
add $3.9 M to LA
add $10 M in bonuses etc.
Grand Total is $162.30

Edit: for typos.

Edited by seantoo, 23 January 2013 - 04:18 PM.


#7 JakeRae


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,311 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:28 PM

From a luxury tax space standpoint, it is far more reasonable to count Napoli at $13 than $5. If the goal is to stay under, all incentives need to be assumed to be likely to be earned.

#8 In my lifetime

  • 396 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:54 PM

From a luxury tax space standpoint, it is far more reasonable to count Napoli at $13 than $5. If the goal is to stay under, all incentives need to be assumed to be likely to be earned.

And if I was GM, 170 million is about the place (better yet --- 170 million in 2013, with only half of that committed in 2014) that I would want this team or any big market team that has the talent to compete for a playoff spot, but also has a lot of question marks.

The RS surprise and look very good, then you have room to add payroll to push them over the top.

The RS flop and then you shed some 2013 payroll, looking to significantly improve the club for 2014.

 

People can criticize Ben plenty, but he has managed to get the RS out from huge unwanted financial obligations.  In 2014, if the Yankees are truly serious about getting under the threshold, the RS should be able to field a better team --- thanks primarily to ARod's contract.


Edited by In my lifetime, 23 January 2013 - 06:56 PM.


#9 Plympton91


  • loco parentis


  • 6,549 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:09 AM

Barring injury in spring training, one of Morales or Miller isn't going to be in the organization on opening day, so hopefully they'll be able to trade the contract and recover that luxury tax room.  Also, if Bard recovers his form completely or fails to clear optional assignment waivers, then there's no room for Aceves either (unless they send Tazawa down) and they can add that money to the kitty.  Plus, as others mentioned, Salty's $4.5 million also could easily not be here at some point early in the season if not sooner.

 

So, it looks to me like there's about $8 million owed to redundant players, at least one of which (Miller/Morales/Aceves) cannot possibly be retained unless a pitcher starts the season on the disabled list or they send Tazawa down or they go with an 8 man bullpen.

 

Hanrahan, Bailey, Uehara, Breslow are locks.

 

The only way to keep all 10 relievers in the organization is to keep 8 in the majors, put Tazawa in AAA and hope Bard clears optional assignment to AAA as well.  So that would be: Aceves, Morales, Miller, Mortensen in the back of the pen, with Bard and Tazawa in AAA.

 

However, barring something bizarre in Florida, Tazawa has to make the team, so one of those four has to go, presumably Mortensen.  If you then go with only 7, you have to cut one of the other 3.  If Bard is back close enough to his old dominating self that he won't clear optional assignment waivers and you go with 7, then you have to cut or trade two of Aceves, Morales, and Miller.



#10 seantoo


  • toots his own horn award winner


  • 1,261 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 03:51 PM

From a luxury tax space standpoint, it is far more reasonable to count Napoli at $13 than $5. If the goal is to stay under, all incentives need to be assumed to be likely to be earned.

Why? His base is his base. $10M is allready assigned to such matters and typically that number is accurate. Should he attain those incentives it means he did well and if he does well there is a chance the team is as well and theyll likely spend above the threshold with a trade anyway. Don't count the chickens before they hatch. It is what it is.



#11 pjheff

  • 256 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 05:42 PM

Hanrahan, Bailey, Uehara, Breslow are locks.


I consider Bailey to be far from a lock. In fact, if he shows himself to be healthy and Bard regains effectiveness, I think Bailey is one of the more likely members of the bullpen to be moved, especially if some other team finds itself in the position that the Sox were at the end of Spring Training last season.

#12 flymrfreakjar

  • 1,579 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 06:39 PM

I consider Bailey to be far from a lock. In fact, if he shows himself to be healthy and Bard regains effectiveness, I think Bailey is one of the more likely members of the bullpen to be moved, especially if some other team finds itself in the position that the Sox were at the end of Spring Training last season.

 

Really? If Bailey's healthy and ready to go, I think he has a real shot at being the best arm in the bullpen... If anything, I've kind of thought he'd be the late-inning ace and Hanrahan was just the clean 9th guy.



#13 Red(s)HawksFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,068 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 07:18 PM

I consider Bailey to be far from a lock. In fact, if he shows himself to be healthy and Bard regains effectiveness, I think Bailey is one of the more likely members of the bullpen to be moved, especially if some other team finds itself in the position that the Sox were at the end of Spring Training last season.

If Bailey is healthy and effective, why would the Red Sox choose to trade him to alleviate their bullpen crunch, and thus keep an inferior arm on the roster?  All of Ben's actions this winter point to an attempt to make a run at contending for a wildcard or the division.  Trading one of the better arms in the bullpen before Opening Day wouldn't really fit with that.  Unless Bailey can bring back something of immediate and greater need (an upgrade to the LHH OF/1B roster spot, for example), there's no way they trade him in spring training.

 

Around the deadline if the season isn't going anywhere, on the other hand, and I can see them shipping him out for prospects.



#14 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28,371 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:07 PM

I suspect they'd consider trading Bailey because he makes a lot if money, they have bullpen depth, and he could have value. They have zero depth at corner OF and 1B, and the fact they gave up assets and 7M to get Hanrahan kind of shows they don't feel that great about Bailey. I guess they could keep him, but this kind of feels like Lee Smith and Jeff Reardon to me.

#15 Plympton91


  • loco parentis


  • 6,549 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 09:16 PM



I consider Bailey to be far from a lock. In fact, if he shows himself to be healthy and Bard regains effectiveness, I think Bailey is one of the more likely members of the bullpen to be moved, especially if some other team finds itself in the position that the Sox were at the end of Spring Training last season.

This is true enough, especially in the scenario you set up with Bard returning to form. It would be smart if they make everyone available and figure out what the best deal is. Why limit your options before you see if there's a team out there willing to give up a cost controlled outfielder with 30 HR potential plus 2 other prospects for Bailey.

Edited by Plympton91, 25 January 2013 - 09:30 PM.


#16 ponch73

  • 111 posts

Posted 25 January 2013 - 11:08 PM

This is true enough, especially in the scenario you set up with Bard returning to form. It would be smart if they make everyone available and figure out what the best deal is. Why limit your options before you see if there's a team out there willing to give up a cost controlled outfielder with 30 HR potential plus 2 other prospects for Bailey.

For Bailey?  Surely you must be joking.  That kind of thing would never happen.  



#17 pjheff

  • 256 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:40 AM

If anything, I've kind of thought he'd be the late-inning ace and Hanrahan was just the clean 9th guy.


I don't see Bailey as ideally suited to that role. First, closers are rarely happy setting up, regardess of what Bailey said at the time of Hanrahan's acquisition. But more importantly, Bailey does not have the type of repertoire that I would be looking for in a late-inning ace. As those guys are often called upon in the middle of innings with men already on base, they should have a propensity for missing bats and inducing feeble groundballs. Bailey strikes me as more flyball prone, which would frighten me in Fenway, making a healthy Uehara or a reclaimed Bard a better fit in the short term and perhaps an established Tazawa in the long term.

#18 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,388 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:20 AM

I would be surprised if any moves in the relief pitching staff are made before spring training. Much, I think, depends on how Bard looks. If he goes back to the Bard of old, then he will be the late-inning ace and they can look to see which of their bullpen arms are in demand.

#19 seantoo


  • toots his own horn award winner


  • 1,261 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:52 PM

I suspect they'd consider trading Bailey because he makes a lot if money, they have bullpen depth, and he could have value. They have zero depth at corner OF and 1B, and the fact they gave up assets and 7M to get Hanrahan kind of shows they don't feel that great about Bailey. I guess they could keep him, but this kind of feels like Lee Smith and Jeff Reardon to me.

Because he makes alot of money is what limits his trade value. Most things can be looked at from completely the opposite direction and be just as valid.



#20 pjheff

  • 256 posts

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:11 PM

Because he makes alot of money is what limits his trade value. Most things can be looked at from completely the opposite direction and be just as valid.


$4.1 million is only a lot of money if he is slotted to be a middle reliever in a deep bullpen. It is not a lot of money if you find yourself in need of a closer.

#21 seantoo


  • toots his own horn award winner


  • 1,261 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:42 PM

$4.1 million is only a lot of money if he is slotted to be a middle reliever in a deep bullpen. It is not a lot of money if you find yourself in need of a closer.

While that is true you have to consider his last two seasons and history of health, he's a big risk to all but the top market teams.

My point was more of a general one to RudyP who stated, "I suspect they'd consider trading Bailey because he makes a lot if money, they have bullpen depth, and he could have value".

In general the more someone makes the less "value" they have, or at least it's harder to have value precisely because value is roughly output (however you want to measure that) divided by the players contract. The length of the deal also cuts into value as well becuase of the increased risk of losing output while still being bound to the contract.



#22 JakeRae


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,311 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:09 PM

Why? His base is his base. $10M is allready assigned to such matters and typically that number is accurate. Should he attain those incentives it means he did well and if he does well there is a chance the team is as well and theyll likely spend above the threshold with a trade anyway. Don't count the chickens before they hatch. It is what it is.

What $10 million is assigned to players earning playing time incentives? The $10 million is an estimate of the non-salary based payroll expenses which are primarily benefit related. Earned incentives will have a very simple additive impact on the CBT payroll number. 

 

Contracts with easily earned incentives are far more logically treated as being worth their full value with a potential to achieve savings if things go wrong than their lowest value with the potential to cost more. The reason for this is that, for the most part, budgets have ceilings, not floors. Napoli is the starting 1B. If he stays healthy, he will earn all or most of his contract (assuming that healthy could include a few short DL trips that cause him to come up short of the full value). You don't want to be in the position of suddenly being $8 million over budget mid-season because a starter on your team isn't hurt. On the other hand, if you account for the fully earned value of the contract and Napoli gets hurt, instead of scrambling for a cheap replacement, the team will have the total value of the no-longer-to-be-earned incentives to throw into acquiring a replacement. That could involve taking on the full contract of a player like Morneau to reduce the cost in talent or it could involve taking back a bad contract in a trade for a cheaper replacement for the same reason. Either way, it is much better to have a little bit of spending money left over than it is to be over-budget and looking for ways to unload money mid-season. 

 

As a final note, I am going to acknowledge that my argument loses merit if the assumption of a budgetary ceiling is thrown out. Of course, the entire exercise of caring about the Red Sox payroll also loses relevance in that scenario.



#23 sfip


  • directly related to Marilyn Monroe


  • 7,449 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 09:37 AM

Per Gordon Edes, Sox safely under 2013 luxury tax threshold.

 

http://espn.go.com/b..._medium=twitter

 

The luxury tax payroll threshold for 2013 is $178 million. For those purposes, salaries are calculated based on the average annual value of a player’s contract in the case of multiyear deals, and not his specific 2013 salary. The Sox, at $149.994 million, are well short of that figure. Even after adding an additional $10 million in benefits, plus the $3.9 million they are paying the Dodgers toward the salaries of Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford and Josh Beckett, the Sox are around $163 million, which should keep the taxman away. 

 



#24 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11,639 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:57 AM

Per Gordon Edes, Sox safely under 2013 luxury tax threshold.

 

http://espn.go.com/b..._medium=twitter

 

Sounds like they're far enough below that, if they were in contention at the deadline and wanted to pick up a useful but high-salaried player, they would be in a position to do so without worrying about the tax. Which is nice flexibility to have.



#25 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2,812 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 11:28 AM

Edes numbers are right in line with the posters above, who had Napoli at $5 million.  If you add an extra $8 million in incentives we're at $171 million.  They'd still be able to add whoever we want at the deadline since you're only paying 1/3 of the AAV if you pick them up that late in the season.  But at first glance Edes numbers make them seem extra frugal when you see his first total coming in at just under $150 million.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users