2016 Payroll

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Yeah but luxury tax calculations take into account the 40-man roster, not just 25. So for Buzzkill's projections, guys like Vazquez need to be factored in, as well as Allen Craig's $9 million in 2016 since he came back on the 40 man roster when he was promoted in September (I guess it's actually $10 million AAV since he's also guaranteed $11 million in 2017).

 

Yes, those players do count toward the salary cap; however, each player on the 40-man roster who is not on the Sox' 25-man roster is also not entitled to the $500K minimum MLB salary, but is only about paid about $60K.
 
15 players x $60K = $0.9M for the lot of 'em.
 
Especially until we know arb-eligible numbers, I find it's easier just to round up "estimated benefits" to the next highest even million and be done with it.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Upthread the need for a 5th OF is cited.  Do people agree that we need a 5th OF?   Betts, Bradley, Castillo with Holt and Shaw gives us great flexibility, imo.  Seems like a low need, if a need at all.  I'd prefer to play Russian Roulette on some new BP arms, find a #1 SP, explore extending young guys like Betts/Bogaerts, and then head to Spring Training.  That can all be done while staying within the LT, unless they go crazy on the #1 SP.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Upthread the need for a 5th OF is cited.  Do people agree that we need a 5th OF?   Betts, Bradley, Castillo with Holt and Shaw gives us great flexibility, imo.  Seems like a low need, if a need at all.  I'd prefer to play Russian Roulette on some new BP arms, find a #1 SP, explore extending young guys like Betts/Bogaerts, and then head to Spring Training.  That can all be done while staying within the LT, unless they go crazy on the #1 SP.

 
Given what they have on the roster right now, if nothing changes (i.e. no one is traded away), the bench looks like Shaw, Holt, catcher #2 and fill in the blank.  Depending on how they view Holt in terms of where he contributes best, that fourth spot can either be a middle infielder (making Holt the true 4th OF) or an outfielder (making Holt primarily the back-up for 2B/SS).  They've got a middle infield candidates in-house in Marrero, Rutledge, and Sean Coyle.  They have outfield options in-house in Brentz and Cecchini (who can also cover the corner IF). The question really is, which position, OF or mid-IF, can they upgrade more easily.  Either way, it's not likely going to cost a significant amount no matter which way they go.

 

[YTF]

Regarding the need for a 5th outfielder, I guess we're going mostly on the assumption that Hanley will be here and playing first base next season, but if DD is able to move him I would like to see The Sox acquire a solid 1B/corner outfield type who might platoon with Shaw if he doesn't show he can man the position full time, act as your 4th OF and let Brock Holt do what Brock Holt does. So if no Hanley, perhaps a bench of Holt, Hanigan 1B/OF type and Marrero?

 

[nvalvo]

Regarding the need for a 5th outfielder, I guess we're going mostly on the assumption that Hanley will be here and playing first base next season, but if DD is able to move him I would like to see The Sox acquire a solid 1B/corner outfield type who might platoon with Shaw if he doesn't show he can man the position full time, act as your 4th OF and let Brock Holt do what Brock Holt does. So if no Hanley, perhaps a bench of Holt, Hanigan 1B/OF type and Marrero?

 
Do you think we could somehow acquire Scott Van Slyke from LA on a buy-low basis?
 
He could be an interesting RH 1B/LF guy. 

 

[Pilgrim]

 
Do you think we could somehow acquire Scott Van Slyke from LA on a buy-low basis?
 
He could be an interesting RH 1B/LF guy. 

In the comments section to that MLBTR link I posted, the author mentions Mark Trumbo as a non-tender candidate.  He can "play" LF and 1b, and certainly hits lefties.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Napoli on a pillow?

(I'd rather have Hanley, assuming he can handle 1b)

 

[TOleary25]

Steve Pearce is a free agent and would make a ton of sense if Hanley is moved. 123 wRC+ vs LHP for his career, plays first and corner outfield. Even had a little bit of time at second base this year.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Napoli on a pillow?

(I'd rather have Hanley, assuming he can handle 1b)

If Hanley is moved or if he doesn't mind coming off the bench then it would make sense. Problem there is Napoli can only play 1 spot. Plus I could see a team like Houston signing him for insurance since in theory he would be an upgrade over Carter or whoever they have at 1st now. Pittsburgh as well.

 

[YTF]

Of the guys mentioned here, I find Trumbo the most intriguing. 2011-2013 seasons he averaged 151 games played, 32 HR and 94 RBI for The Angels. Was traded to Arizona for the 2014 season, where he played just 88 games due to a stress fracture in his foot and still hit 14 HR and drove in 61 runs. Last year he combined time with Arizona and Seattle he played 142 games hit 22 HR and drove in 64. He's just 29 years old, a young veteran with a lifetime .250 hitter and does strike out a lot. The majority of his OF play has been in right, but he did play a fair amount of left field for Arizona. He made 6.9 million this past season, arb. eligible in 2016 and FA eligible in 2017.

 

[YTF]

I can't see Nap coming back. He was mostly great here and seemed to love playing in Boston, but this past season was disastrous. I'm guessing another team would offer him more than the Sox would to come back.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I too think it's a bad fit - mostly because of Ramirez and Shaw, but I'm still hesitant to judge 2015 as a strong pivot point for him - considering the off-season surgery and that he's recently performed better (sss).
 
I've spent too many years watching horseface save runs and errors, and recall the short experiment that was Slappy-at-1B (an ex-SS/3B) to feel confident about Ramirez. Then again, 1B is traditionally where bad fielders go to die.
 
If Ramirez is moved (and I hope he isn't) - we all agree that the team needs a power-hitting RH bat at 1B, right? Short of that - a power hitting LH bat who can hit LHP. A good fielder would be a plus, but not the first criteria

 

[Shane]

I too think it's a bad fit - mostly because of Ramirez and Shaw, but I'm still hesitant to judge 2015 as a strong pivot point for him - considering the off-season surgery and that he's recently performed better (sss).
 
I've spent too many years watching horseface save runs and errors, and recall the short experiment that was Slappy-at-1B (an ex-SS/3B) to feel confident about Ramirez. Then again, 1B is traditionally where bad fielders go to die.
 
If Ramirez is moved (and I hope he isn't) - we all agree that the team needs a power-hitting RH bat at 1B, right? Short of that - a power hitting LH bat who can hit LHP. A good fielder would be a plus, but not the first criteria

I agree, I would be very disappointed if Hanley is traded. It would be the worst possible time to sell, and it seems like there's a solid chance that he'll have a great year in 2016. I would much rather them trade Sandoval, who just looks like wasted money now. If they could package him with someone to clear some payroll, I'd even be ok with them signing Chris Davis and putting Hanley at 3B where he's played in the past (probably not well, but it's wishful thinking to think he's gonna play any position well besides DH).

 

[nvalvo]

I agree, I would be very disappointed if Hanley is traded. It would be the worst possible time to sell, and it seems like there's a solid chance that he'll have a great year in 2016. I would much rather them trade Sandoval, who just looks like wasted money now. If they could package him with someone to clear some payroll, I'd even be ok with them signing Chris Davis and putting Hanley at 3B where he's played in the past (probably not well, but it's wishful thinking to think he's gonna play any position well besides DH).

I don't get this. All of the reasons not to sell low on Ramirez after one miserable season apply to Sandoval too. What am I missing?

 

[Shane]

I don't get this. All of the reasons not to sell low on Ramirez after one miserable season apply to Sandoval too. What am I missing?

Hanley was actually one of the best hitters in baseball the first month of the year.

 

[nvalvo]

Hanley was actually one of the best hitters in baseball the first month of the year.

 
I'm not missing that. As you say, it would be the worst possible time to sell on Hanley. I entirely agree with you there. What I'm skeptical about is your immediate move to trade Panda. Why *wouldn't* it also be just as bad a time to sell there? It seems to me that identical reasoning applies. 
 
Is your position really that Hanley had one great month amidst a generally awful 2015 so he should stay, but because Panda's best months (.839 OPS in April; .775 in June) were merely very good he should go? 

 

[nvalvo]

I guess I should write what I think we should do. 
 
My position is that I'm certainly willing to trade Hanley or Panda for 70 cents on the dollar, but not 10. I'm not sure what the trade market looks like for them, but I'm guessing it's closer to 10. The following reasoning is based on that assumption. (Then again, one never knows: knock on wood and send a prayer to Vernon Wells, patron saint of lost causes....)
 
Let's say you keep Pablo (or Hanley — the same ideas apply). A year down the road one of three things has happened:
 
A) Pablo has a great season, the kind of season that would have justified the FA investment. In this case, you win! The player's value, both to the Red Sox and potential trade partners is pretty much restored; also, our 2016 team is probably really good.
 
B) Pablo is merely okay, say 1 WAR. In this case, you've not gotten much value out of the roster spot and payroll allocation, but you should be able to live with it until you have a better option at the position. Maybe this is Shaw extending his big league track record and earning more playing time; maybe it's Moncada taking the Mookie Betts approach to the high minors. We have a lot of interesting infield prospects. But in the meantime, a Panda who's at least posting positive WAR should be tradeable on more attractive terms than a Panda who's deep in the red. Someone with a need might be willing to pick up a meaningful portion of the deal.
 
C) Pablo is 2015-level bad, again in 2016. Unplayably, -2 WAR bad. In this case, you have to release him, even if you're just replacing him with Deven Marrero or Marco Hernandez.
 
But what have you lost? His present trade value is near-zero or maybe negative, so you've lost the difference between that trade value and the value of the outcome of the DFA. You've also been hurt by the poor play in 2016, and the opportunity cost of the roster spot, but you need to weigh that against the possibility that a player with his track record will return to form or something like it.
 
How long you should be willing to continue the experiment depends on how good the rest of the team turns out to be. If we shape up as a 70-something win roster again, it should be all year. But if the rest of the roster looks like a potential contender, we should give him through May — say 250 PA — to show signs of life. 

 

[Shane]

I guess I should write what I think we should do. 
 
My position is that I'm certainly willing to trade Hanley or Panda for 70 cents on the dollar, but not 10. I'm not sure what the trade market looks like for them, but I'm guessing it's closer to 10. The following reasoning is based on that assumption. (Then again, one never knows: knock on wood and send a prayer to Vernon Wells, patron saint of lost causes....)
 
Let's say you keep Pablo (or Hanley — the same ideas apply). A year down the road one of three things has happened:
 
A) Pablo has a great season, the kind of season that would have justified the FA investment. In this case, you win! The player's value, both to the Red Sox and potential trade partners is pretty much restored; also, our 2016 team is probably really good.
 
B) Pablo is merely okay, say 1 WAR. In this case, you've not gotten much value out of the roster spot and payroll allocation, but you should be able to live with it until you have a better option at the position. Maybe this is Shaw extending his big league track record and earning more playing time; maybe it's Moncada taking the Mookie Betts approach to the high minors. We have a lot of interesting infield prospects. But in the meantime, a Panda who's at least posting positive WAR should be tradeable on more attractive terms than a Panda who's deep in the red. Someone with a need might be willing to pick up a meaningful portion of the deal.
 
C) Pablo is 2015-level bad, again in 2016. Unplayably, -2 WAR bad. In this case, you have to release him, even if you're just replacing him with Deven Marrero or Marco Hernandez.
 
But what have you lost? His present trade value is near-zero or maybe negative, so you've lost the difference between that trade value and the value of the outcome of the DFA. You've also been hurt by the poor play in 2016, and the opportunity cost of the roster spot, but you need to weigh that against the possibility that a player with his track record will return to form or something like it.
 
How long you should be willing to continue the experiment depends on how good the rest of the team turns out to be. If we shape up as a 70-something win roster again, it should be all year. But if the rest of the roster looks like a potential contender, we should give him through May — say 250 PA — to show signs of life. 

The one thing that separates them in my opinion is upside. Both have a very low floor, as was shown this year. In my opinion though, Pablo's ceiling is a pretty good 3B, whereas Hanley's is one of the best hitters in baseball.

If you could get 70 cents on the dollar for either of them, I'd do it in a second. The problem is that you can't. If I had to guess, even 10 would be lucky at this point. I can't think of any team that would want Hanley, and the only way I could see them trading Pablo would be for another bad contract, maybe Shields or Verlander (I would be okay with that). Basically though, if you trade them, you're paying them to potentially be good for another team, and it's not like they'd be getting anything productive back. So, I'd say unfortunately just keep both. I also think the whole "bad clubhouse guy, addition by subtraction" thing is largely overdone.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Teams that may need a DH in 2016 and could be happy to take Ramirez off the Red Sox' hands, particularly if the Red Sox are paying a substantial amount of the salary for someone who's capable of being one of the best hitters in the league (add/subtract to this list)
 
Yankees (Rodriguez is 140 years-old)
Royals (Morales FA)
Tigers (aging/injured Martinez, who is 5 years older than Hanley - but a tough contract to dump)
Indians (Swisher, who is 5 years older than Hanley and is out after 2016)
Orioles (Paredes is young and cheap, but not Hanley) 
Astros (Gattis arb eligible, but unlikely to be replaced)
Twins (Sano / Vargas - ouch, but can't see them giving up)
Rays (yeah, right)
 
As for Sandoval, I still see him as the eventual 1B in a tandem of Ramirez-DH / Sandoval-1B...the question is - when?

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Teams that may need a DH in 2016 and could be happy to take Ramirez off the Red Sox' hands, particularly if the Red Sox are paying a substantial amount of the salary for someone who's capable of being one of the best hitters in the league (add/subtract to this list)
 
Yankees (Rodriguez is 140 years-old)
Royals (Morales FA)
Tigers (aging/injured Martinez, who is 5 years older than Hanley - but a tough contract to dump)
Indians (Swisher, who is 5 years older than Hanley and is out after 2016)
Orioles (Paredes is young and cheap, but not Hanley) 
Astros (Gattis arb eligible, but unlikely to be replaced)
Twins (Sano / Vargas - ouch, but can't see them giving up)
Rays (yeah, right)
 
As for Sandoval, I still see him as the eventual 1B in a tandem of Ramirez-DH / Sandoval-1B...the question is - when?

Swisher is on the Braves.
 
I don't know what "ouch" is supposed to mean, but Sano is an impressive young hitter.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

"Ouch" means, "How the fuck did I forget Swisher's on the Braves"?
 
For the Twins - Sano could have been ROY - I just feel pain when a Rookie is brought up and inserted as a DH.

 

[plucy]

O
Q

 

[pantsparty]

Those advocating trading Sandoval - who would you replace him with? Part of why they signed Sandoval was because there wasn't a good internal option above single A and the FA market was pretty barren at the position. Getting rid of Sandoval puts them back into the same position, unless Holt can play the position full-time (which I'm skeptical of) or there's a FA on the market this year who would make it worth eating part of Sandoval's contract and then paying someone else FA money.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

As for Sandoval, I still see him as the eventual 1B in a tandem of Ramirez-DH / Sandoval-1B...the question is - when?

 
The trouble with this is that even if Sandoval's offense bounces back to its 2012-14 level, that's borderline at best for a 1B. Unless he has some kind of miracle regeneration that turns him back into the offensive beast he was in 2009 and 2011, Pablo Sandoval the first baseman is a mediocre player; Travis Shaw is probably better. We need him to stay at third at least until Moncada or Devers is ready--that's probably two more years.

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
The trouble with this is that even if Sandoval's offense bounces back to its 2012-14 level, that's borderline at best for a 1B. Unless he has some kind of miracle regeneration that turns him back into the offensive beast he was in 2009 and 2011, Pablo Sandoval the first baseman is a mediocre player; Travis Shaw is probably better. We need him to stay at third at least until Moncada or Devers is ready--that's probably two more years.

Two more years. Pablo better lose weight and keep it off. Situations like this I wish baseball was like football and see how fast the Sox would cut his ass. Instead, maybe Hanley works out at 1B and Shaw/Holt can Pipp his ass as he goes down with his umpteenth injury. 

 

[alwyn96]

Those advocating trading Sandoval - who would you replace him with? Part of why they signed Sandoval was because there wasn't a good internal option above single A and the FA market was pretty barren at the position. Getting rid of Sandoval puts them back into the same position, unless Holt can play the position full-time (which I'm skeptical of) or there's a FA on the market this year who would make it worth eating part of Sandoval's contract and then paying someone else FA money.

 
Well, the options aren't great, but you could do worse than Daniel Murphy or David Freese at 3B, and I would guess they might be available for like 3/$30M-40M or so? I really have no idea. If one is a convinced anti-Sandovalian (ie, you think he's a 0 WAR player for the rest of his contract) then it's worth subsidizing getting him off the roster to bring in even an averagish player.
 
You could also go with Zobrist or Desmond, but I think they'll get a lot more than Murphy/Freese, and Desmond will probably want to play SS. I'm not sure they'd be worth it - you'd have to pay them like SS. 
 
I'm not sure how interested are the Marlins are in giving lip service to contending next year, but I imagine Prado could be available as well. 
 
At any rate, if some team is interested in Sandoval, there are options. Of course, if some other team needs a 3B, they could just sign Murphy or Freese to a reasonable contract themselves. The Red Sox would probably have to eat an undesirable contract in return or get creative.  

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

Holt, Shaw, Swihart, all would almost certainly be better in 2016 at third base than Sandoval was in 2015. 

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Holt, Shaw, Swihart, all would almost certainly be better in 2016 at third base than Sandoval was in 2015. 

 
Same should be said of Sandoval himself, unless we believe he's gone all Allen Craig at age 28-29.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

I don't know how well Fangraphs measures pre-metrics defense, and of course you have to somehow keep getting playing time to keep accumulating this much negative WAR, but according to fWAR 2015 Sandoval was the 53rd worst player season since 1870. 
 
Or to put it another way, by WAR Sandoval's season ranked 14824 out of 14879. 
 
It's also the worst season by fWAR in Red Sox history. 
 
Accounting for payroll, I think it's safe to say that Sandoval's 2015 was the worst season of all time.
 
All of which is to say I have no confidence in Sandoval in 2015 and would seriously consider accepting not just 10 cents on the dollar but zero cents on the dollar. 

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Remember when John Lackey had the worst ERA ever for the Sox? Too bad that did t turn around, huh?

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Remember when John Lackey had the worst ERA ever for the Sox? Too bad that did t turn around, huh?

Remember when Carl Crawford had an awful season for the Sox? Good thing that turned around.

In case it isn't obvious, my point is not that Sandoval will or won't get better, just that pointing past examples has zero predictive value.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Remember when Carl Crawford had an awful season for the Sox? Good thing that turned around.

In case it isn't obvious, my point is not that Sandoval will or won't get better, just that pointing past examples has zero predictive value.

And my point is that one bad season doesn't mean someone is cooked. Injuries play a part just like they did with Crawford. Crawford had a rough season this year, but he bounced back initially after recovering from his TJ to average 2 WAR in limited playing time, before having health issues again this year.

If you're going to completely ignore past performance, I would ask what exactly you're looking at to predict future performance?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

And my point is that one bad season doesn't mean someone is cooked. Injuries play a part just like they did with Crawford. Crawford had a rough season this year, but he bounced back initially after recovering from his TJ to average 2 WAR in limited playing time, before having health issues again this year.

If you're going to completely ignore past performance, I would ask what exactly you're looking at to predict future performance?

 
Focusing on Sandoval's 2015 isn't "completely ignoring past performance," it's just looking at what is perhaps an overly thin slice of it. 
 
The thing about Sandoval's 2015 that makes it hard to know what to expect next year is that there isn't a smoking gun. There isn't one component number you can point to and say, "well that's obviously an anomaly, and if he can get that back into normal range, he'll be fine." Pablo got worse at everything this year, but nothing took a precipitous tumble except maybe his BABIP; it was an across-the-board symphony of moderate decline. He posted a career low walk rate and career high K rate--but not by a large margin in either case. His BABIP went down 30 points, his ISO 15, and his HR/FB was his lowest since his sophomore-slump 2010--but still just barely 2 percentage points worse than his career average. But all this took place in a year when offense, and especially power, was up across MLB, and Pablo was going to a better offensive environment than the one he left. So getting a little worse was effectively getting a lot worse. 
 
The good news is that there isn't any aspect of his 2015 performance that was so far below his career norms that you can't picture it bouncing back. The bad news is that in order for him to be worth his contract, pretty much all of it has to bounce back. 

 

[jon abbey]

Teams that may need a DH in 2016 and could be happy to take Ramirez off the Red Sox' hands, particularly if the Red Sox are paying a substantial amount of the salary for someone who's capable of being one of the best hitters in the league (add/subtract to this list)
 
Yankees (Rodriguez is 140 years-old)
Royals (Morales FA)
Tigers (aging/injured Martinez, who is 5 years older than Hanley - but a tough contract to dump)
Indians (Swisher, who is 5 years older than Hanley and is out after 2016)
Orioles (Paredes is young and cheap, but not Hanley) 
Astros (Gattis arb eligible, but unlikely to be replaced)
Twins (Sano / Vargas - ouch, but can't see them giving up)
Rays (yeah, right)
 
As for Sandoval, I still see him as the eventual 1B in a tandem of Ramirez-DH / Sandoval-1B...the question is - when?

 
Not that the Yankees and Red Sox were ever going to make a meaningful trade, but if something happens to A-Rod, Beltran immediately becomes their full-time DH, so you can take them off this list.