Red Sox Rumors - Just Kidding

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
29,899
So here's what's going to happen. The Sox will re-sign Bogaerts for a long contract at pretty big dollars. We will all (or almost all) be thrilled. But somewhere in there he'll have a bad season and everyone will be like, why did we waste all this money on a clearly declining Xander? Now we're stuck with the rest of this huge contract!
Wait just a minute!! You think people will wait until *after* he has a bad season to do that?
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I agree he's not done but I might prefer going in a different direction with a more flexible "DH" that fill in elsewhere and allows you to rotate. Someone like Evan Longoria or Justin Turner would be a similarly great clubhouse addition and produced similar numbers to JD last season. Each could give Devers a day-off in the field, and Turner also has some experience at 2B and 1B. I don't think Longoria's done it before, but maybe he could play some 1B too to be the righty complement to Hosmer/Casas.

JD may end up similarly priced and less cooked, but I've always been a fan of those two. Especially Longo.
My "I might be crazy but hear me out" take on bringing back JD is... what if Franchy just needs to put his mitt away like JD and focus solely on hitting? The poor kid was under terrible stress last year from playing positions where he wasn't set up to succeed, to put it mildly. Maybe a year of platooning at DH with JD could finally unlock whatever is in there. And if the answer is still "just a lot more Ks" then you can figure out a long-term plan next winter.
 
Last edited:

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
My "I might be crazy but hear me out" take on bringing back JD is... what if Franchy just needs to put his mitt away like JD and focus solely on hitting? The poor kid was under terrible stress last year of playing positions where he wasn't set up to succeed, to put it mildly. Maybe a year of platooning at DH with JD could finally unlock whatever is in there.
This might prove difficult.
 

Green (Tongued) Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2016
967
Hanover, PA
My "I might be crazy but hear me out" take on bringing back JD is... what if Franchy just needs to put his mitt away like JD and focus solely on hitting? The poor kid was under terrible stress last year from playing positions where he wasn't set up to succeed, to put it mildly. Maybe a year of platooning at DH with JD could finally unlock whatever is in there. And if the answer is still "just a lot more Ks" then you can figure out a long-term plan next winter.
Maybe the Orioles will try it!
 

Rice4HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2002
1,880
Calgary, Canada
My "I might be crazy but hear me out" take on bringing back JD is... what if Franchy just needs to put his mitt away like JD and focus solely on hitting? The poor kid was under terrible stress last year from playing positions where he wasn't set up to succeed, to put it mildly. Maybe a year of platooning at DH with JD could finally unlock whatever is in there. And if the answer is still "just a lot more Ks" then you can figure out a long-term plan next winter.
Step 1 in this plan is a trade to get Franchy back.


edit: Sorry to pile on, my screen hadn't refreshed.
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 3, 2001
44,779
Mtigawi
Step 1 in this plan is a trade to get Franchy back.


edit: Sorry to pile on, my screen hadn't refreshed.
PeteAbe (in 5 minutes): Someone associated with the Red Sox organization says that there is talk about re-acquiring Franchy Cordero.
 

jcormjmac

New Member
Aug 2, 2022
17
PeteAbe (in 5 minutes): Someone associated with the Red Sox organization says that there is talk about re-acquiring Franchy Cordero.
is that the Sign and trade - rumblings Sign X - 9/245 and then trade to Balt - for the French to the Cordova
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
40,196
Pioneer Valley
Everybody's favorite, Jon Heyman (yuck) is coming up after the commercials on mlbn to "dive into" the SS market.
Never mind. He knows nothing we don't know.
 

Rice4HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2002
1,880
Calgary, Canada
I guess noone knows what limitations there are on artificially extending the years of a contract to push AAV down?
Not specifically. But I do know there IS something in place to prevent a team from, for example, signing someone to a 50 year contract, to get the AAV more manageable. If the Phillies think Turner will only play 8 more years, and gave him the 11/$300 to bring down the AAV and plan on releasing him in year 9, that might slide by, but if the contract was 20/$300, I'm sure someone would put a stop to it.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,130
I'd actually wondered this in the past. Such as using the Turner contract for example, if they'd agreed to 11 years and $300m, why not tack on a one year player option at the end for $1m to make the AAV $25m per year instead of $27m or some such. There would be no hindrance to the player and it would bring down the AAV of the contract.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,918
With people discussing how the 11 year contract for Turner was about driving the AAV down -- is there a limit on this? Like, I can't imagine they could sign X for like 20 years or what not, but where is the line drawn?
I'm also curious about this. Here's another scenario. Say you offer a player a heavily frontloaded 8 year contract with an opt-out like:

2023: $50M
2024: $50M
2025: $50M
~Opt-out~
2026: $20M
2027: $15M
2028: $15M
2029: $10M
2030: $10M

On paper, that's an AAV of $27.5M. If the player opts-out after 2025, I think the tax hit would be $50M for that season. But wouldn't the tax hit for 2023 and 2024 be $27.5M? Like, I don't think you can retroactively change a team's tax payroll for an opt-out that was exercised two seasons later. Maybe the difference between $100M and $55M for the first two seasons would then be spread out in 2026 - 2030 as an additional line in the franchise's luxury payroll? I think there are some scenarios where you carry dead money as part of your luxury payroll calculation like player retirements (wasn't Pedroia's deal on the books for a while?), but still, seems like it's something teams would be incentivized to explore since that's just a $9M hit per year.
 

opes

Doctor Tongue
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'd actually wondered this in the past. Such as using the Turner contract for example, if they'd agreed to 11 years and $300m, why not tack on a one year player option at the end for $1m to make the AAV $25m per year instead of $27m or some such. There would be no hindrance to the player and it would bring down the AAV of the contract.
Probably because 2 mil isnt going to limit the Phillies from signing another player. But, however small the amount, you have a valid point.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,399
Rogers Park
I'd actually wondered this in the past. Such as using the Turner contract for example, if they'd agreed to 11 years and $300m, why not tack on a one year player option at the end for $1m to make the AAV $25m per year instead of $27m or some such. There would be no hindrance to the player and it would bring down the AAV of the contract.
Theo did some things like that with e.g. the Beltre contract that was a 1-year deal structured as a 1 year deal with an option/buyout that would make zero sense for Beltre to ever accept — the whole point was to have a good season with Boston and then sign a big multi-year deal elsewhere (done and done) — but which, under the rules at the time, lowered its AAV.

My understanding was that subsequent CBAs changed the accounting to make that impossible, but I'm not sure about the details.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,399
Rogers Park
Everybody's favorite, Jon Heyman (yuck) is coming up after the commercials on mlbn to "dive into" the SS market.
Never mind. He knows nothing we don't know.
You'd figure that Boras has to feed him a genuine scoop from time to time in order to keep him useful for information warfare.
 

Big Papi's Mango Salsa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2022
1,130
Thank you!

I assumed there had to be something against it because if I'm some jerk posting on a message board and thought of this, I'd be certain someone like Theo would have as well.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
13,789
Theo did some things like that with e.g. the Beltre contract that was a 1-year deal structured as a 1 year deal with an option/buyout that would make zero sense for Beltre to ever accept — the whole point was to have a good season with Boston and then sign a big multi-year deal elsewhere (done and done) — but which, under the rules at the time, lowered its AAV.

My understanding was that subsequent CBAs changed the accounting to make that impossible, but I'm not sure about the details.
The short answer is that the CBA treats "Guaranteed Years" and "Option Years" differently. The long answer is...in the CBA.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
13,789
Might as well answer these the best I can...

I'd actually wondered this in the past. Such as using the Turner contract for example, if they'd agreed to 11 years and $300m, why not tack on a one year player option at the end for $1m to make the AAV $25m per year instead of $27m or some such. There would be no hindrance to the player and it would bring down the AAV of the contract.
My understanding is that the AAV is simply $300m/11, & if he accepts the option, his AAV will be $1m for that year (although I assume that will be below the league minimum & they'd at least have to pay him league minimum?)

I'm also curious about this. Here's another scenario. Say you offer a player a heavily frontloaded 8 year contract with an opt-out like:

2023: $50M
2024: $50M
2025: $50M
~Opt-out~
2026: $20M
2027: $15M
2028: $15M
2029: $10M
2030: $10M

On paper, that's an AAV of $27.5M. If the player opts-out after 2025, I think the tax hit would be $50M for that season. But wouldn't the tax hit for 2023 and 2024 be $27.5M? Like, I don't think you can retroactively change a team's tax payroll for an opt-out that was exercised two seasons later. Maybe the difference between $100M and $55M for the first two seasons would then be spread out in 2026 - 2030 as an additional line in the franchise's luxury payroll? I think there are some scenarios where you carry dead money as part of your luxury payroll calculation like player retirements (wasn't Pedroia's deal on the books for a while?), but still, seems like it's something teams would be incentivized to explore since that's just a $9M hit per year.
I believe for AAV this is a $150m/3 ($50m), and if he does not opt out, the next 5 years are a $70m/5 AAV ($14m).

If the player retires, that would only impact the consideration of any signing bonus I believe. If the player retires, they stop receiving their salary & as such there's no future AAV issues related to that salary they are not receiving. The player is obviously heavily incentivized not to retire, even if they are no longer a competent baseball player.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,918
Might as well answer these the best I can...



My understanding is that the AAV is simply $300m/11, & if he accepts the option, his AAV will be $1m for that year (although I assume that will be below the league minimum & they'd at least have to pay him league minimum?)



I believe for AAV this is a $150m/3 ($50m), and if he does not opt out, the next 5 years are a $70m/5 AAV ($14m).

If the player retires, that would only impact the consideration of any signing bonus I believe. If the player retires, they stop receiving their salary & as such there's no future AAV issues related to that salary they are not receiving. The player is obviously heavily incentivized not to retire, even if they are no longer a competent baseball player.
Friend at MLBPA just texted me that for player options (opt-outs are treated the same way) the CBA has what they call a "valley charge" that essentially adds dollars to the guaranteed years of a contract and then the player option years (or the years post opt-out) are a certain percentage below the guaranteed years. So it's not strictly two diff contracts but there's a disincentive in the CBA.

I guess noone knows what limitations there are on artificially extending the years of a contract to push AAV down?
Not specifically. But I do know there IS something in place to prevent a team from, for example, signing someone to a 50 year contract, to get the AAV more manageable. If the Phillies think Turner will only play 8 more years, and gave him the 11/$300 to bring down the AAV and plan on releasing him in year 9, that might slide by, but if the contract was 20/$300, I'm sure someone would put a stop to it.
Same friend says he doesn't think there's a specific provision that necessarily prevents this (assuming all years are guaranteed--no player options/opt-outs). For example, as a practical matter many clubs do long deferrals (e.g., Manny's contract is still a line item for purposes of Boston's luxury payroll calculation).

He thinks that the reason why a more extreme version of the Trea Turner deal (like a 20-year deal) doesn't happen is that the owners like being able to subtly circumvent the CBA like Turner, but at the same time, they complain about the effect of dead money on payroll calculations when these contracts go on forever, like Miggy. So not necessarily a rule that's stopping clubs but the owners may not want to look like total morons in front of an arbitrator next CBA or something.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
29,899
Oh well. I've had a soft spot for Ward ever since I heard his ST debut on radio and could hear his family shrieking with joy from the stands. (2020 or 21?)
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,305
Disappointed that Ward was taken in the Rule 5 but, of course, not surprised at all. Pretty much a given once they opted not to add him to the 40 man. It was a curious decision by the Sox not to protect him, but I think it's important to keep in mind that he's hardly a lock. I'd have personally preferred that the Sox be the ones that gambled on his development, but the organization has certainly earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its minor league system.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Song hasn't thrown a competitive pitch in 3 years and has 0 IP above A ball. How's that guy going to stick on a roster all year?
Are they hoping his service deferral request is denied and they can just stash him on some unavailable list all year? No idea how that works. But you wouldn't think a team that was just in the World Series could have a dead roster spot.