2016 Payroll

Plympton91 · Jul 1, 2015

When is the CBA up? I have to think the union will be demanding an increase in the luxury tax threshold.

bellowthecat · Jul 1, 2015

Ortiz is likely going to make more than that $10M you have down. Once he hits 425 PAs this year it hits $11M, then keeps increasing $1M for every extra 25-50 PA until it becomes a guaranteed $16M option at 600 PA.

I also don't think the Red Sox are going to spend $23M on those arbitration players because I don't think Ross, Nava, or Varvaro will play for the Sox next year. Also hard to see Nava and Kelly getting big raises in arbitration.

Byrdbrain · Jul 2, 2015

Yeah the arb number is way too high, I'd say only Kelly and Taz are "likely to be back". Ross and Ogando could be back but only on very friendly deals and Naver is a non-tender.

jscola85 · Jul 2, 2015

Ogando's peripherals are suggesting he is pitching on borrowed time.

Byrdbrain · Jul 2, 2015

He is making $1.5M this year and is arb-eligible next year and will be 32. If he has a good year he'll be looking for a healthy raise and I just don't see them doing that.

If they get him at a good number he could certainly be back.

Apisith · Jul 2, 2015

It will depend on his service time but yeah, he's looking at something very close to the minimum if he comes up.

glennhoffmania · Jul 2, 2015

What's the basis for thinking that they may go after one of the top FA pitchers and spend $25m+ per year? I'm not saying I'm against the idea or think that it isn't possible, but they seemed to have very little interest in going above about $21m for Lester and I don't recall any rumors that they were in on Scherzer at all.

Red(s)HawksFan · Jul 2, 2015

glennhoffmania said:
What's the basis for thinking that they may go after one of the top FA pitchers and spend $25m+ per year? I'm not saying I'm against the idea or think that it isn't possible, but they seemed to have very little interest in going above about $21m for Lester and I don't recall any rumors that they were in on Scherzer at all.

I think the idea that they'll pursue one of the top free agent pitchers is simple fan wish-casting. For better or worse, they committed to Porcello and Miley for the next 3-4 years (along with the previously existing commitment to Buchholz) with the idea that at least one of the kids would emerge, hopefully two, to take rotation spots and allow them to stay out of the deep end of the free agent pool for a couple years.

I can't see them paying the premium necessary to land a Cueto or a Zimmermann or a Price without shedding at least one of the veteran salaries they've already got so the net addition to the payroll Danny_Darwin is estimating is only in the neighborhood of $5-10M per year. Problem is that it would appear Buchholz is the easiest to move (or shed by not picking up the option) and I'm not sure the net gain in quality is worth the net increase in cost.

MikeM · Jul 3, 2015

glennhoffmania said:
What's the basis for thinking that they may go after one of the top FA pitchers and spend $25m+ per year? I'm not saying I'm against the idea or think that it isn't possible, but they seemed to have very little interest in going above about $21m for Lester and I don't recall any rumors that they were in on Scherzer at all.

If we finish in last place again, can you really see Henry letting Ben go into next year presenting the same "we don't need to spend big money on starting pitching" front to the fan base for a second straight year?

I mean maybe Buchholz keeps it up, goes on to pitch the first 200ip season of his career at age 31 (he's half way there!), and everybody is left feeling the warm fuzzies about the #1 spot that wasn't present throughout all the howling last winter. But if/when that doesn't happen, we are basically left with 3 options:

1. Spend the money
2. Pull the ace trade out of a hat
3. Repeat last winter's approach

At the end of the day i just can't see us swallowing the hard reality pill of 3, and 2 seems to lose serious likelihood points once past the generalized claim that our "prospect rich" farm leaves us in a great position to pull off the big trade. Other then Hamels, what pricey aces for sale are really out there? Owens+ wasn't getting him this spring, and it's not like anything has really changed for the notable better since. Heck, chances are that potential ship has already sailed anyway (at this point does Hamels even accept a trade here?).

That leaves the ever elusive cost controlled ace trade. Take the prospects off the table that are already being plugged into our roster at the MLB level (which we more or less need to balance out ~~Theo's~~ Ben's cute overpays), and how many clubs can you realistically project to be selling baseball's #1 most coveted asset for a return package heavy on the lower level lottery tickets? It's a long shot bet at very best. Cheap and strongly enticing MLB-ready pieces is likely the name of that game, which is a currency we lack in an expendable abundance atm. Billy Beane isn't trading us Sonny Grey for Joe Kelly and JBJ, regardless how many lottery tickets you tack on.

So yeah, my basis boils down to a lack of alternative options i guess.

MikeM · Jul 3, 2015

Danny_Darwin said:
Well, moving Castillo might work also, though it would raise the question of who plays RF.

Moving Castillo could work if we could find a taker, as would selling off Buchholz and Koji before this year's deadline. There's also the bonus of potentially avoiding a LT hit in 2015.

Unlike my thoughts on trading for the cost controlled ace, going into this winter with a goal of back filling the above (assuming we hadn't already done some of that with their returns) seems a lot more doable imo.

twibnotes · Jul 12, 2015

I feel like the Sox record would be about the same as it is now had Ben not signed Hanley, Panda, Castillo and Porcello. We'd have a young core and a shitload of money to spend.

God forbid this ownership group allow a short rebuilding process.

MikeM · Jul 12, 2015

twibnotes said:
I feel like the Sox record would be about the same as it is now had Ben not signed Hanley, Panda, Castillo and Porcello. We'd have a young core and a shitload of money to spend.

God forbid this ownership group allow a short rebuilding process.

Hanley is arguably our most legitimate threat in the lineup this year and leads the team in homers. Lumping him in with the other 3 seems rather harsh.

It's not like the Sox have have shown much of an ability lately to plug those type of holes from within either. Even if you don't spend the money on a Hanley last winter, a pressing need for middle of the order power was still going to exist going in to this upcoming offseason.

MuzzyField · Jul 12, 2015

Hanley was the best offseason bat addition to the roster.. The problem is there is someone already playing his 'defensive' position. As long as the front office is happy, I'm happy. At least we're not the Phillies.

soxhop411 · Jul 12, 2015

Rudy Pemberton said:
Hanley has a good amount of power, but that's about it. He doesn't get on base at an acceptable rate, and is a negative on the base paths and defensively. Think about Manny his last year with the Sox, subtract 80 points of OBP and 30 points of SLG and you've got Hanley '15.

I dont think Hanley will be in the OF for his whole contract....

MuzzyField · Jul 12, 2015

Rudy Pemberton said:
Hanley has a good amount of power, but that's about it. He doesn't get on base at an acceptable rate, and is a negative on the base paths and defensively. Think about Manny his last year with the Sox, subtract 80 points of OBP and 30 points of SLG and you've got Hanley '15.

The kids will grow into some power, but you hit on the problem. HR sticks out as the pitch around guy, and on a championship relevant team he isn't 'that' guy.

twibnotes · Jul 12, 2015

MikeM said:
Hanley is arguably our most legitimate threat in the lineup this year and leads the team in homers. Lumping him in with the other 3 seems rather harsh.

That's fair, but it's also fair to point out that they erred big time thinking he could play LF. It's not a good contract if you are slotting him in a place where he gives back a chunk of the runs he helps produce.

Laser Show · Jul 12, 2015

twibnotes said:
That's fair, but it's also fair to point out that they erred big time thinking he could play LF. It's not a good contract if you are slotting him in a place where he helps give back a chunk of the runs he helps produce.

To be fair, did anyone think he couldn't play left field? This is a guy who was a SS on a world series contender as recently as 2013

Edit: hell, 2014

Red(s)HawksFan · Jul 12, 2015

twibnotes said:
That's fair, but it's also fair to point out that they erred big time thinking he could play LF. It's not a good contract if you are slotting him in a place where he gives back a chunk of the runs he helps produce.

HE thought he could play left field. Let's not forget that. Hanley came to the Red Sox offering to move to left field in order to make himself more appealing to them. It's not like the Sox front office pulled the idea out of nowhere.

JBJ_HOF · Jul 12, 2015

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zPx_cKCQ7TQjab2kPM4zIhEFSDxrTpLLIEZr2xh5E8g/edit#gid=6

MuzzyField · Jul 12, 2015

Laser Show said:
To be fair, did anyone think he couldn't play left field? This is a guy who was a SS on a world series contender as recently as 2013

The front office did think he could manage LF for a few years and that's the only vote that matters.

soxhop411 · Jul 12, 2015

Rudy Pemberton said:
Well, sure...it's confusing though- the front office was desperate to move Manny years ago in part because of his defense, paid a premium for Crawford largely based on his defensive value in LF, then decided Hanley would be good enough there. It would be interesting to know why they've been so all of the place on terms of determining now important defense is for their LF.

I thought they wanted to move Manny because of clubhouse issues? (Like pushing the traveling secretary)

Edit: and the whole fake injury and PH at Yankee stadium thing (where he took three straight strikes)

In my lifetime · Jul 12, 2015

soxhop411 said:
I thought they wanted to move Manny because of clubhouse issues? (Like pushing the traveling secretary)

They wanted to move Manny at the particular time that his contract looked like a negative asset. And every team agreed, since he was not picked up.

Red(s)HawksFan · Jul 12, 2015

Rudy Pemberton said:
Well, sure...it's confusing though- the front office was desperate to move Manny years ago in part because of his defense, paid a premium for Crawford largely based on his defensive value in LF, then decided Hanley would be good enough there. It would be interesting to know why they've been so all of the place on terms of determining now important defense is for their LF.

Pretty sure the urge to move Manny stemmed from a lot more than his defense. He was a thorn in the manager and general manager's sides asking out of games, asking to be traded, changing his mind. He was a malcontent regardless of his defensive prowess (or lack thereof).

More or less the first thing he said to John Henry after Henry bought the team was "I need to get out of Boston". There was the "I'm too 'sick' to pinch hit" incident in 2003 that resulted in Grady Little benching him. Manny being placed on waivers in December 2003 and going unclaimed ("see Manny, no one wants you"). The "can't remember what knee is hurt" incident in 2005 that nearly resulted in a deadline deal with the Mets. And that little incident where he pushed a 70 year old man to the ground.

Funny though, if they were desperate to get rid of Manny due to his defense, that they held on to him and lived with that defense for 5.5 years.

MuzzyField · Jul 12, 2015

Red(s)HawksFan said:
Pretty sure the urge to move Manny stemmed from a lot more than his defense. He was a thorn in the manager and general manager's sides asking out of games, asking to be traded, changing his mind. He was a malcontent regardless of his defensive prowess (or lack thereof).

More or less the first thing he said to John Henry after Henry bought the team was "I need to get out of Boston". There was the "I'm too 'sick' to pinch hit" incident in 2003 that resulted in Grady Little benching him. Manny being placed on waivers in December 2003 and going unclaimed ("see Manny, no one wants you"). The "can't remember what knee is hurt" incident in 2005 that nearly resulted in a deadline deal with the Mets. And that little incident where he pushed a 70 year old man to the ground.

Funny though, if they were desperate to get rid of Manny due to his defense, that they held on to him and lived with that defense for 5.5 years.

I agree with all of this, but he still would have been as asset against the cowbell nation in the post season.

Red(s)HawksFan · Jul 12, 2015

MuzzyField said:
I agree with all of this, but he still would have been as asset against the cowbell nation in the post season.

Maybe, but his direct replacement hit .292/.469/.458 with a HR and 4 RBI in that series. Not sure how much difference he makes.

MuzzyField · Jul 12, 2015

Red(s)HawksFan said:
Maybe, but his direct replacement hit .292/.469/.458 with a HR and 4 RBI in that series. Not sure how much difference he makes.

On that late Saturday night against the Rays, before Mike T. took the mound, I would have liked Manny to have had an at bat or four. I don't think the Rays game planed the same way for Bay. I think Manny dented some balls for the Dodgers.

Sampo Gida · Jul 12, 2015

In my lifetime said:
They wanted to move Manny at the particular time that his contract looked like a negative asset. And every team agreed, since he was not picked up.

Might have misunderstood you here but they moved Manny in 2008 because Manny was faking an injury to force the Red Sox NOT to pick up his option after the 2008 season so he could become a free agent, which the Red Sox were inclined to pick up since he was having a pretty good year (926 OPS, 20 HR at the time he was dealt). There also was the arrest of a couple of security staffers due to PED's in July that prompted an MLB investigation that may or may not have factored into the decision, given its possible Manny was enhanced in 2008, and some of his incidents earlier in the year with the travelling secretary and Youk suggest a bit of roid rage.

Savin Hillbilly · Jul 12, 2015

Red(s)HawksFan said:
I think the idea that they'll pursue one of the top free agent pitchers is simple fan wish-casting. For better or worse, they committed to Porcello and Miley for the next 3-4 years (along with the previously existing commitment to Buchholz) with the idea that at least one of the kids would emerge, hopefully two, to take rotation spots and allow them to stay out of the deep end of the free agent pool for a couple years.

The commitment to Miley is quite minor. We're talking two years, $15M plus a $12M option, with an AAV just over $6M. That's fifth-starter money. If we're willing to take a bag of balls in return for him, it shouldn't be that hard a contract to get rid of if we decide we need to do that to make room to sign Cueto or whomever. We just have to find somebody who thinks his stuff will play better in their park.

It's Porcello, Hanley and Pablo that are the issue. That's $60M annually for the next three years, and $40M in the fourth year, to three guys who are on a pace to produce a combined -1.8 fWAR this year.

This franchise needs a deus ex machina every bit as badly as it did three years ago. And it's probably asking too much to expect it to happen again.

twibnotes · Jul 12, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
It's Porcello, Hanley and Pablo that are the issue. That's $60M annually for the next three years, and $40M in the fourth year, to three guys who are on a pace to produce a combined -1.8 fWAR this year.

This franchise needs a deus ex machina every bit as badly as it did three years ago. And it's probably asking too much to expect it to happen again.

The Castillo contract may be an albatross too (early yet but a concern)

If the FO comes back mostly intact next year, I'll be very disappointed

soxhop411 · Jul 12, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
The commitment to Miley is quite minor. We're talking two years, $15M plus a $12M option, with an AAV just over $6M. That's fifth-starter money. If we're willing to take a bag of balls in return for him, it shouldn't be that hard a contract to get rid of if we decide we need to do that to make room to sign Cueto or whomever. We just have to find somebody who thinks his stuff will play better in their park.

It's Porcello, Hanley and Pablo that are the issue. That's $60M annually for the next three years, and $40M in the fourth year, to three guys who are on a pace to produce a combined -1.8 fWAR this year.

This franchise needs a deus ex machina every bit as badly as it did three years ago. And it's probably asking too much to expect it to happen again.

Why don't we give it a full season before calling all three of those contracts an "issue"?

twibnotes · Jul 12, 2015

soxhop411 said:
Why don't we give it a full season before calling all three of those contracts an "issue"?

Doesn't ownership need to render some judgment now? Is it really a stretch to be skeptical of the FO these days?

soxhop411 · Jul 12, 2015

twibnotes said:
Doesn't ownership need to render some judgment now? Is it really a stretch to be skeptical of the FO these days?

Both Hanley and Pablo have been playing much better as of late (for Pablo it was since he stop switched hitting). I mean if you want to cut your losses on all three contracts before their first season is up, fine. Players have off years But don't complain when they rebound next year after we traded them for peanuts.

twibnotes · Jul 12, 2015

soxhop411 said:
Both Hanley and Pablo have been playing much better as of late (for Pablo it was since he stop switched hitting). I mean if you want to cut your losses on all three contracts before their first season is up, fine. Players have off years But don't complain when they rebound next year after we traded them for peanuts.

Forgetting about his mediocre performance this year, did you even like the panda deal in the offseason? Would you have signed Hanley if you knew he would make manny Ramirez look like JBJ in the field?

Not sure much can be done now. I'm just lamenting the fact that the sox could have been in an amazing position going into '16 if not for some of these moves that today at least don't look so good.

JBJ_HOF · Jul 12, 2015

soxhop411 said:
Both Hanley and Pablo have been playing much better as of late (for Pablo it was since he stop switched hitting). I mean if you want to cut your losses on all three contracts before their first season is up, fine. Players have off years But don't complain when they rebound next year after we traded them for peanuts.

Sandoval has been in a downward trend before signing, the fact he is holding steady is actually a good season. And if people want to look at Hanley's defensive metrics in small samples, he's been playable for a few months now, but the April introductions in a player's first year in Boston will never leave people's memories.

soxhop411 · Jul 12, 2015

twibnotes said:
Forgetting about his mediocre performance this year, did you even like the panda deal in the offseason? Would you have signed Hanley if you knew he would make manny Ramirez look like JBJ in the field?

Not sure much can be done now. I'm just lamenting the fact that the sox could have been in an amazing position going into '16 if not for some of these moves that today at least don't look so good.

I would rather the sox got Donaldson. BUT Given that BB had a fixation on Blue jay prospects that wasn't happening. And the 3B FA market for the next few years is almost non existent so I was fine with the panda signing. More than half of SOSH would have complained if they went with WMB as their 3B again. So what other 3B options did we have? (and don't say Holt because nobody thought he would be an AS after his production tailed off the last half of 2014

soxhop411 · Jul 12, 2015

And I don't think anyone thought that Porcello would pitch this bad. This would be a career worst season for him.

soxhop411 · Jul 12, 2015

Rudy Pemberton said:
Sandoval has a 696 OPS with terrible defense . Can we stop acting as if he's been ok? His SLG is on pace to decline for the fifth straight year. The fact that it's just the first half year of the deal is what scares me the most. This team has gone on and on about how risky long term deals are....and they decided to give three such deals to Ramirez, Porcello, and Sandoval?

What's his OPS since he stopped switch hitting?

MuzzyField · Jul 12, 2015

Rudy Pemberton said:
Sandoval has a 696 OPS with terrible defense . Can we stop acting as if he's been ok? His SLG is on pace to decline for the fifth straight year. The fact that it's just the first half year of the deal is what scares me the most. This team has gone on and on about how risky long term deals are....and they decided to give three such deals to Ramirez, Porcello, and Sandoval?

When FOX pointed out he was on pace for less than 55 RBI last night, I stuck another pin in the baseball operations voodoo doll.

Savin Hillbilly · Jul 12, 2015

soxhop411 said:
Both Hanley and Pablo have been playing much better as of late (for Pablo it was since he stop switched hitting). I mean if you want to cut your losses on all three contracts before their first season is up, fine. Players have off years But don't complain when they rebound next year after we traded them for peanuts.

I didn't necessarily say we should trade them for peanuts, I said they were an issue. Bad decisions can put you in a situation where there are no good decisions.

And just to quibble, Pablo was playing better back in mid-June, but has gone back to being ice-cold at the plate: over his past 16 games, dating back to June 24, his line is .222/.231/.286. I don't doubt he'll heat up again at some point. The question is, will he heat up enough, for long enough, often enough to compensate for the mediocre defense he has shown so far and be the above-average player we're paying him to be?

MuzzyField · Jul 12, 2015

Is JWH willing to do his own reset? There will be no Punto 2.0.
He may need to do his own market correction on this roster. Is he willing to eat that shit burger?

CoolPapaBellhorn · Jul 12, 2015

Danny_Darwin said:
I say this as someone who thinks Panda isn't as bad as he's shown this year, but this argument of "who would have played 3rd??" drives me up a wall. Hanley Ramirez! He had signed the day before.

THANK YOU. The issue isn't that they signed one guy or the other - it was that they signed both when they already had (in theory) too many bats. Signing either one on their own to fill the hole at 3B would have been defensible. Signing both was overkill and I haven't heard a good reason for it yet other than "Hanley wanted to play here."

2016 Payroll

Post-darwinian

Post-darwinian

bubble burster

Member

Member

Post-darwinian

Member

Member

Post-darwinian

Post-darwinian

Member

Post-darwinian

meat puppet

Post-darwinian

Member

Post-darwinian

Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

news aggravator

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

news aggravator

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

loves the secret sauce

Member

news aggravator

Member

news aggravator

Member

Member

news aggravator

news aggravator

Post-darwinian

news aggravator

Well-Known Member

loves the secret sauce

Well-Known Member

Member