Red Sox sign Patrick Sandoval

[radsoxfan]

I don't think it really affects their ability to spend at the top of the market on free agent pitching because they never really intended to. It was a fool me once, fool me twice situation between Price and Sale.

The strategy, as I see it, is more likely to spread out risk over a few guys -- extending Bello, with his upside, at a nice price as they did, extending Crochet at 7/175 or whatever, maybe bringing back Pivetta or adding Buehler. We can do that and improve the team substantially without blowing our load on Burnes, whose peripherals have been declining for years now and is due for the inevitable missed year that hits just about every pitcher.

I hear that, but I'm not talking about pitching specifically.

Would 18M added to our current offer on Bregman or Alonso or whoever get it across the finish line?

People can argue if that's a good thing or not. But either way, none of these contracts are done in a vacuum for a team that clearly has a budget.

Losing the the added depth/pitching insurance policy is a real cost. But if we are refusing to pay top dollar for any FA while also cycling through these pitching fliers on non-trivial contracts, I think it's fair to question that plan year after year.

 

[Fishy1]

Personally, I don't expect them to live at the top of the market but they're not even doing the mid-level deals you're talking about. Teoscar Hernandez, if reports are correct, wants 3 years at around $25 million/year. That's mid level in this market. Jack Flaherty or Walker Buehler would be a mid-level type of deal. They have plenty of room if they want to go out and make a couple of bigger signings plus sign young guys to extensions.

Okay, but that's just not true. They haven't yet this offseason, but they have in the recent past. In just the last few years, they extended Devers for a huge deal. They signed Story for a mid-level contract. They gave Giolito a short, but mid-level deal last offseason. They signed Kenley and Yoshida to exactly these sorts of mid-level deals. They've shown a willingness to do this, absolutely.

 

[Fishy1]

I hear that, but I'm not talking about pitching specifically.

Would 18M added to our current offer on Bregman or Alonso or whoever get it across the finish line?

People can argue if that's a good thing or not. But either way, none of these contracts are done in a vacuum for a team that clearly has a budget.

Losing the the added depth/pitching insurance policy is a real cost. But if we are refusing to pay top dollar for any FA while also cycling through these pitching fliers, I think it's fair to question that plan year after year.

Why does it have to be free agents? Why does the 300 million dollar Devers extension never get any traction in these discussions? This is where I honestly get frustrated, because it does feel like people just want a shiny new toy.

They've shown a clear preference of getting guys who are younger and extending them. As a fan I like that. Sue me.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Okay, but that's just not true. They haven't yet this offseason, but they have in the recent past. In just the last few years, they extended Devers for a huge deal. They signed Story for a mid-level contract. They gave Giolito a short, but mid-level deal last offseason. They signed Kenley and Yoshida to exactly these sorts of mid-level deals. They've shown a willingness to do this, absolutely.

Giolito and Jansen were short term deals. Not exactly extending themselves there. Devers was a necessity that I am not sure even gets done unless Henry got publicly shamed at the Winter Classic. Story's signing was almost 3 years ago now.

Go out and sign Bregman or Hernandez, another starter(hey they could really good if the Burnes market craters and they get him at a lower cost?), and one of the top bullpen arms left on the market and they get a ton of credit from me. All I asl is that they make the proper investments that make the team better.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

I’m trying to understand all the talk about how agggessive and persistent Breslow is being- why does this keep being reported? Trying to understand who this serves.

 

[Fishy1]

Giolito and Jansen were short term deals. Not exactly extending themselves there. Devers was a necessity that I am not sure even gets done unless Henry got publicly shamed at the Winter Classic. Story's signing was almost 3 years ago now.

Go out and sign Bregman or Hernandez, another starter(hey they could really good if the Burnes market craters and they get him at a lower cost?), and one of the top bullpen arms left on the market and they get a ton of credit from me. All I asl is that they make the proper investments that make the team better.

I don't know man, I started typing out individual replies to each of these rationalizations, but really none of this makes any sense to me.

Chalk it up to incommensurability. We're living on different planets, I guess.

 

[SouthernBoSox]

No

Personally, I don't expect them to live at the top of the market but they're not even doing the mid-level deals you're talking about. Teoscar Hernandez, if reports are correct, wants 3 years at around $25 million/year. That's mid level in this market. Jack Flaherty or Walker Buehler would be a mid-level type of deal. They have plenty of room if they want to go out and make a couple of bigger signings plus sign young guys to extensions.

None of these players have signed yet.

 

[Sille Skrub]

So, I'm not sure why you think that Boston should have a top 4-6 payroll (assuming you believe BOS is never going to match LAD/NYM/MFY in payroll).

Boston is actually top three in MLB for revenue every year. They are also #1 in fan cost index (.ie what it costs to take a family of four to a game).

They absolutely should have a top 4-6 payroll.

 

[RedOctober3829]

No
None of these players have signed yet.

Of course they haven’t. Who said they have?

 

[RedOctober3829]

I don't know man, I started typing out individual replies to each of these rationalizations, but really none of this makes any sense to me.

Chalk it up to incommensurability. We're living on different planets, I guess.

What planet is that? Do you think the organization has made the necessary investments to field a winning team since 2018? If you do, I don’t k ow what to tell you.

 

[Fishy1]

What planet is that? Do you think the organization has made the necessary investments to field a winning team since 2018? If you do, I don’t k ow what to tell you.

Basically I think they've made the commitments, they've just sucked out loud. Jansen worked out, but Story, Yoshida, Giolito, Sale, etc... they've all blown up in their faces.

 

[chawson]

I’m trying to understand all the talk about how agggessive and persistent Breslow is being- why does this keep being reported? Trying to understand who this serves.

Who does it serve to report it or who does it serve to discuss it?

 

[burstnbloom]

I strongly believe they won’t acquire another pitcher. Time shall tell.

They may not, but it has nothing to do with Sandoval so everyone posting about it in here sound ridiculous. He has TJS on June 21, 2024. The best case scenario is he can come back by the all star break. Then it would take 5-6 weeks to ramp him up to a starters workload after not throwing a pitch in anger for over a year. They certainly aren't making this deal to complete their 2025 rotation. Matt Boyd got 2x$34 after pitching 30 innings last year at age 34. Alex Cobb got 1x$14m with incentives to get to $17m for his age 37 season after pitching 14 innings last year.

Sandoval, in this market, is 2026 depth at a discount. If anyone believes they won't sign another pitcher, I can understand that. There's certainly a place to have that discussion given how things have gone the last few years. My larger point was that place is not in this thread talking about this pitcher. If you truly believe they won't sign another guy BECAUSE of Sandoval, that opinion doesn't really stand up to any scrutiny given the injury timeline of this pitcher and the $41m left between them and the CBT threshold.

 

[benhogan]

Hyperbole? a 28 year old top 5 pitcher goes to free agency. Wouldn't his AAV be somewhere between what Blake Snell $36.5 and Zack Wheeler $42 just signed for? Gerrit Cole was 29 when he signed his 9/324 5 yrs ago. This isnt opinion. This is what will happen. At that point the market will dictate what he gets, and it will be within your hyperbolic range, no matter what "hardball" you think the Red Sox can play. BTW even if he had Tommy John in the spring and never pitched for the Red Sox. He would still get $100M when he became a free agent. Not to mention there is inurance against possible future earnings such as Scherzer took out if he wants to.

This is his leverage for the current extension (which I believe has to be agreed to in principle) and every month that goes by with out him being injured it increases. if that +++ = another $100m+ than I think you are right, given the 2 remaining arb years.

He's not even a TOP10 starter now. I don't expect the Sox to start pricing him like a future TOP5 pitcher, who has received Cy Young votes over multiple seasons. Especially from a guy who has had TJ & never been a full-time SP before last season.

I'm excited about GC's Age, K/BB ratio over 150 innings & I liked the trade. BUT the Sox don't need to play hardball; just be rational and follow the breadcrumbs CAA left over the last 5 months. I suspect they had detailed knowledge of extension demands before sending out four prospects.

Feel free to dunk on me if GC gets that $ 200M/7-years (5 years + 2 option years) extension you expect now.

 

[Cassvt2023]

Houck has to be the guy. He earned it. Also I wouldn't want them to put Crochet out front, let him ease into the team and the role.

Thanks for playing @chrisfont9 I was really just tring to get a thread back to actual baseball talk! I agree, Houck earned it from his performance last season and how long he has been here. I'd slot Crochet in the #2 and Bello #3 and go from there.

 

[Rasputin]

Thanks for playing @chrisfont9 I was really just tring to get a thread back to actual baseball talk! I agree, Houck earned it from his performance last season and how long he has been here. I'd slot Crochet in the #2 and Bello #3 and go from there.

Yeah, I don't see how Crochet isn't the top guy. Also, I don't get Slaten as closer. Isn't Hendriks supposed to be that guy?

 

[LogansDad]

Yeah, I don't see how Crochet isn't the top guy. Also, I don't get Slaten as closer. Isn't Hendriks supposed to be that guy?

I think Crochet is the #1, but would probably lean toward giving Houck Opening Day, if that makes any sense. A rotation that goes Houck - Crochet - Bello - <Insert two of the the best/least injured of Giolito/Crawford/Fitts/Priester/depth starter who is picked up between now and April here> is probably a good way to go into the season, but wouldn't be surprised if they swap Crochet and Houck either.

I think the bullpen is going to be closer to a 2013 kind of "figure out who is best suited to which role over the first month and ride it through the rest of the season" than anything being set in stone. I give the closer's edge to Hendriks, but I don't think the team will be too quick to make adjustments if they deem it is necessary.

 

[RedOctober3829]

I think Crochet is the #1, but would probably lean toward giving Houck Opening Day, if that makes any sense. A rotation that goes Houck - Crochet - Bello - <Insert two of the the best/least injured of Giolito/Crawford/Fitts/Priester/depth starter who is picked up between now and April here> is probably a good way to go into the season, but wouldn't be surprised if they swap Crochet and Houck either.

I think the bullpen is going to be closer to a 2013 kind of "figure out who is best suited to which role over the first month and ride it through the rest of the season" than anything being set in stone. I give the closer's edge to Hendriks, but I don't think the team will be too quick to make adjustments if they deem it is necessary.

Crochet is their #1. Let him having Opening Day and go from there.

 

[chrisfont9]

Thanks for playing @chrisfont9 I was really just tring to get a thread back to actual baseball talk! I agree, Houck earned it from his performance last season and how long he has been here. I'd slot Crochet in the #2 and Bello #3 and go from there.

Yeah and if we only have one lefty… I know it doesn’t really matter but still would like him between the righties when possible, not first.

 

[chrisfont9]

Yeah, I don't see how Crochet isn't the top guy. Also, I don't get Slaten as closer. Isn't Hendriks supposed to be that guy?

He might be better but isn’t it kind of a team culture thing? It’s not like he’s stepping into a void. Houck had an important year and is a team fixture.

Agree with you about Hendriks, at least to begin with.

 

[Fishy1]

He might be better but isn’t it kind of a team culture thing? It’s not like he’s stepping into a void. Houck had an important year and is a team fixture.

Agree with you about Hendriks, at least to begin with.

Keep in mind closer is an important role but it's not the only high leverage innings. Your fireman who comes in when things are most dire is just as important.

 

[20Ks]

He's not even a TOP10 starter now. I don't expect the Sox to start pricing him like a future TOP5 pitcher, who has received Cy Young votes over multiple seasons. Especially from a guy who has had TJ & never been a full-time SP before last season.

I'm excited about GC's Age, K/BB ratio over 150 innings & I liked the trade. BUT the Sox don't need to play hardball; just be rational and follow the breadcrumbs CAA left over the last 5 months. I suspect they had detailed knowledge of extension demands before sending out four prospects.

Feel free to dunk on me if GC gets that $ 200M/7-years (5 years + 2 option years) extension you expect now.

No need to dunk on you. You are of the belief that if Crochet were a free agent today he would get 4-5 years at 20-25 AAV. I disagree wholeheartedly. It's really not worth discussing it with you. We are in 2 different realities.

 

[MetSox1]

Two concerns with this signing.

1) if 2025 is competitive and we get to the trade deadline and want to make a move but not want to cross the tax line, and this deal blocks a move because of that... that would be brutal.

2) this guy had control issues already, and the last thing to come back after TJ is control. So I'm not particularly confident in his ability to perform in year 2.

On paper. If you can get a potential 3 starter at 9 AAV, that's a worthy spend. But it's more worthy for teams that aren't going to feel constrained by that 9 mil the year where they are straight eating it. And I'm not sure if that is true of this year's team.

I guess point three... im worried this says that they'll spend money, but they don't like this years Free Agents enough to want to spend money. Which, in watching whats happened thus far, feels like it could be accurate. If that's the case, and they won't attack FA, then targeting deals like this this year, or salary dump trades that will use the resource (cash) to build makes sense. I just don't want a competitive team to miss an add at the deadline because we're engaging in that strategy

 

[benhogan]

You are of the belief that if Crochet were a free agent today he would get 4-5 years at 20-25 AAV.

Now you're misrepresenting my stance. Amateur

We're done

 

[DJnVa]

What planet is that? Do you think the organization has made the necessary investments to field a winning team since 2018? If you do, I don’t k ow what to tell you.

Well, in the 6 seasons since they have a winning record, so....yes?

I'm kinda being sarcastic but your larger point, I think, is have they made the investments in field a team capable of competing with the best teams in the league? And that answer is no.

 

[chrisfont9]

Keep in mind closer is an important role but it's not the only high leverage innings. Your fireman who comes in when things are most dire is just as important.

Agree, so although people object to Chapman, having two recent closers (one LHP) and Slaten is a great way to deal with the different high leverage sequences.

 

[RS2004foreever]

If I thought this was the only move the Red Sox were going to make I guess I would be skeptical. I don't.
But as a reminder: the DODGERS used an opener in THE WORLD SERIES.
You can never have enough pitching.

 

[TomRicardo]

So John Henry is cheap? Again?

We got it.

See here is the issue, it is not cheap per se. It is FSG is trying to run some convoluted Moneyball and the results have been horrible. Not getting Mookie was cheap. Not drafting pitchers for years was strange. Continuously going after reclamation projects has not borne the fruit they thought. I do think Breslow is doing a good job around the edges but it seems that FSG is dead set on continuing to help agents out by running up FA prices and paying for player's rehab.

The more and more they dick around the more and more move like spending for Soto is required to turn the team around quickly. I do think the team is better than last year's team but not in a significant way. The anger at FSG is they charge exuberant prices while outright lying to ticket holders about their intent to compete. In reality, they seem to be cost maxxing the team. FSG has become the "unlimited PTO" of baseball ownership.

All of that said a majority of the moves made have been hoping things break lucky than based on some advanced analytics. Sometimes that is fine say trading Vazquez for Valdes and Abreu for instance however you are going to get sustained success, you need to start doing some principled team building.

The roster is still a bit of a mess. Four of your five highest paid players really don't have full time role going forward past this season with the team The other is not long for his position. Number six is a guy on a rehab year you signed to rehab. This is going to be the sixth transition year in a row for the team. There is no reason to have any thing other than healthy skepticism in ownership or this team. It is frustrating going to a board which objectively looked at the team 15 years ago and see people begging for it to be a safe space for unwarranted optimism to pass off as "analysis". I really hope the sensitivity some posters pour out on the board is reserved for here, because otherwise I can't imagine how back breaking reality is for some of you.

 

[20Ks]

Now you're misrepresenting my stance. Amateur

We're done

Amateur.? OK Pro.. He's not a top ten starter, has no track record, has been injured. Those are your arguments. So if not 5 years in the mid 20s what does he get 10+ in the mid 30s? Your argument on that is "that's crazy."

He led the league in xfIP and K/BB . I dont know what you guys that are arguing what certain values players actually have are thinking, but those things are quantifiable. "The throw $100m at him because he's never made it" days are over.
I'm glad you're done Pro. Happy trails

 

[20Ks]

See here is the issue, it is not cheap per se. It is FSG is trying to run some convoluted Moneyball and the results have been horrible. Not getting Mookie was cheap. Not drafting pitchers for years was strange. Continuously going after reclamation projects has not borne the fruit they thought. I do think Breslow is doing a good job around the edges but it seems that FSG is dead set on continuing to help agents out by running up FA prices and paying for player's rehab.

The more and more they dick around the more and more move like spending for Soto is required to turn the team around quickly. I do think the team is better than last year's team but not in a significant way. The anger at FSG is they charge exuberant prices while outright lying to ticket holders about their intent to compete. In reality, they seem to be cost maxxing the team. FSG has become the "unlimited PTO" of baseball ownership.

All of that said a majority of the moves made have been hoping things break lucky than based on some advanced analytics. Sometimes that is fine say trading Vazquez for Valdes and Abreu for instance however you are going to get sustained success, you need to start doing some principled team building.

The roster is still a bit of a mess. Four of your five highest paid players really don't have full time role going forward past this season with the team The other is not long for his position. Number six is a guy on a rehab year you signed to rehab. This is going to be the sixth transition year in a row for the team. There is no reason to have any thing other than healthy skepticism in ownership or this team. It is frustrating going to a board which objectively looked at the team 15 years ago and see people begging for it to be a safe space for unwarranted optimism to pass off as "analysis". I really hope the sensitivity some posters pour out on the board is reserved for here, because otherwise I can't imagine how back breaking reality is for some of you.

All teams that are able to spend are in these predicaments to some extent. It's the size of your mistakes, your ability to mitigate them, and having the flexibility to do so.
That's done by strengthening your farm system, locking up young players, and finding players that will outperform their contracts. I'm borrowing "unwarranted optimism" to describe my sex life.
It would be nice to talk about moves the team makes without consistent posts by Glum from the Banana Splits saying "we'll never make it." Not everything is an existantial crisis.

Have you annointed yourself the steward of delivering the back breaking reality to some of us?

 

[scottyno]

He's not even a TOP10 starter now. I don't expect the Sox to start pricing him like a future TOP5 pitcher, who has received Cy Young votes over multiple seasons. Especially from a guy who has had TJ & never been a full-time SP before last season.

I'm excited about GC's Age, K/BB ratio over 150 innings & I liked the trade. BUT the Sox don't need to play hardball; just be rational and follow the breadcrumbs CAA left over the last 5 months. I suspect they had detailed knowledge of extension demands before sending out four prospects.

Feel free to dunk on me if GC gets that $ 200M/7-years (5 years + 2 option years) extension you expect now.

He was tied for 6th in fwar this year despite only throwing 146 innings and is currently projected 4th for next year, I think most people in baseball would call him a top 10 starter now.

No he won't get 7-200, largely because that would be buying out 5 free agent years at pretty close to the highest AAV for any (non ohtani) pitcher ever, because his next 2 years are so cheap, but 7 for 150-175 doesn't seem unrealistic.

 

[20Ks]

You’re answering the wrong guy. Mods?

Sorry the poster jumped in when we were having a discussion of what a Crochet extension would look like.. I was of the same mind as you and came around to thinking it would look more like 5/140 or 150 with 2 player options in year 6 and 7 between 30 and 35 AAV, because of other posters on this board. Then I was attacked for that opinion.

 

[CR67dream]

Everybody back to their corners, please.

 

[oumbi]

So no one is allowed to wonder if signing a guy, who has mixed data about his effectiveness, and who most likely won’t pitch this season, is the best use of what we know to be limited resources?

Only cheering for 2026 AAV is an acceptable response?

*edit* I do get that the broader topic of cheapness and all that can be a slog when it’s in every thread. But there is also a legit discussion to be had about the merits of this specific transaction.

We all know this is NOT what is being stated by posters and this type of response validates their points. I am not even sure why you posted this.

 

[cantor44]

Boston is actually top three in MLB for revenue every year. They are also #1 in fan cost index (.ie what it costs to take a family of four to a game).

They absolutely should have a top 4-6 payroll.

And to add, they had a top 1-4 payroll for from 2004-2021, 18-years straight (as you might recall the period in which they won 4 WS and made the playoffs 10 times). Of course LA and Mets have changed their modus operandi since then, but it seems perfectly logical to want the Red Sox to be 3-5 in payroll every year. Where they should be.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

And to add, they had a top 1-4 payroll for from 2004-2021, 18-years straight (as you might recall the period in which they won 4 WS and made the playoffs 10 times). Of course LA and Mets have changed their modus operandi since then, but it seems perfectly logical to want the Red Sox to be 3-5 in payroll every year. Where they should be.

It's not just the Dodgers and Mets that have changed M.O. The Phillies have too. And the Rangers. And Astros. And Padres. Just to name a few of the record number of teams that paid luxury tax in 2024.

From 2003 (first year of luxury tax) through 2018, eight teams paid luxury tax: Yankees (15x), Red Sox (9x), Dodgers (5x), Tigers (3x), Giants (3x), Nationals (2x), Cubs (1x), and Angels (1x)
Since 2018, thirteen teams have paid luxury tax: Yankees (4x), Dodgers (4x), Padres (4x), Phillies (3x), Mets (3x), Cubs (2x), Rangers (2x), Braves (2x), Blue Jays (2x), Giants (1x), Astros (1x), Red Sox (1x), Angels (1x)

It's not really the Sox that have changed tack (i.e. spending less), it's a lot of other teams have changed (i.e. spending more).

 

[20Ks]

It's not just the Dodgers and Mets that have changed M.O. The Phillies have too. And the Rangers. And Astros. And Padres. Just to name a few of the record number of teams that paid luxury tax in 2024.

From 2003 (first year of luxury tax) through 2018, eight teams paid luxury tax: Yankees (15x), Red Sox (9x), Dodgers (5x), Tigers (3x), Giants (3x), Nationals (2x), Cubs (1x), and Angels (1x)
Since 2018, thirteen teams have paid luxury tax: Yankees (4x), Dodgers (4x), Padres (4x), Phillies (3x), Mets (3x), Cubs (2x), Rangers (2x), Braves (2x), Blue Jays (2x), Giants (1x), Astros (1x), Red Sox (1x), Angels (1x)

It's not really the Sox that have changed tack (i.e. spending less), it's a lot of other teams have changed (i.e. spending more).

Not to mention all this discussion surrounding the Yankees and Mets spending, means their owners are commited to winning, its easy to lose sight that the only 15 year olds in the NY/NJ/CT tri-state area who have experienced a championship, are the ones that became Red Sox fans.

 

[mikcou]

It's not just the Dodgers and Mets that have changed M.O. The Phillies have too. And the Rangers. And Astros. And Padres. Just to name a few of the record number of teams that paid luxury tax in 2024.

From 2003 (first year of luxury tax) through 2018, eight teams paid luxury tax: Yankees (15x), Red Sox (9x), Dodgers (5x), Tigers (3x), Giants (3x), Nationals (2x), Cubs (1x), and Angels (1x)
Since 2018, thirteen teams have paid luxury tax: Yankees (4x), Dodgers (4x), Padres (4x), Phillies (3x), Mets (3x), Cubs (2x), Rangers (2x), Braves (2x), Blue Jays (2x), Giants (1x), Astros (1x), Red Sox (1x), Angels (1x)

It's not really the Sox that have changed tack (i.e. spending less), it's a lot of other teams have changed (i.e. spending more).

Its pretty contrary to the facts to say the Sox aren't spending less. Both can in fact be true (others are spending more and the Sox are spending less).

The Dave Dombrowski era had 40 man cash costs (i.e., the actual amounts that they are paying not the CBT AAV numbers) in the $230-$240M range. That number was $204M last year. Cash commitments coming into the offseason pre-arb, pre-player benefits was only ~$105M. Add on $15M for arb guys (including Crochet) its $120M; another $10M for pre arb is $130M. Free agent signings to date only get them to $145-150M. Player benefits and remaining 40 man costs is another $20M. That puts them at about $170M in cash spend on the roster. So they would need to spend another $30M just to get to last year's spend and something like $70M to get back to where they were 6-7 years ago.

YMMV, but that seemns like a pretty clear trend from $230-$240 to low $200s to under $200M; all in a time period where we have total inflation (and MLB revenue growth) of ~25%. I guess this could all be one really long rebuild and the back end of it they'll start spending into the $250-$270M range (inflation adjusted DD years), but we are extremely far away from that picture right now.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Its pretty contrary to the facts to say the Sox aren't spending less. Both can in fact be true (others are spending more and the Sox are spending less).

The Dave Dombrowski era had 40 man cash costs (i.e., the actual amounts that they are paying not the CBT AAV numbers) in the $230-$240M range. That number was $204M last year. Cash commitments coming into the offseason pre-arb, pre-player benefits was only ~$105M. Add on $15M for arb guys (including Crochet) its $120M; another $10M for pre arb is $130M. Free agent signings to date only get them to $145-150M. Player benefits and remaining 40 man costs is another $20M. That puts them at about $170M in cash spend on the roster. So they would need to spend another $30M just to get to last year's spend and something like $70M to get back to where they were 6-7 years ago.

YMMV, but that seemns like a pretty clear trend from $230-$240 to low $200s to under $200M; all in a time period where we have total inflation (and MLB revenue growth) of ~25%. I guess this could all be one really long rebuild and the back end of it they'll start spending into the $250-$270M range (inflation adjusted DD years), but we are extremely far away from that picture right now.

They don't feel likely to go above $250mm and the ceiling may be lower. We need to get used to the idea that they won't spend in free agency to supplement the team. Its too rich for them. Player acquisition will be done via trade or by finding misfit toys like Sandoval and Buhler.

 

[simplicio]

Its pretty contrary to the facts to say the Sox aren't spending less. Both can in fact be true (others are spending more and the Sox are spending less).

The Dave Dombrowski era had 40 man cash costs (i.e., the actual amounts that they are paying not the CBT AAV numbers) in the $230-$240M range. That number was $204M last year. Cash commitments coming into the offseason pre-arb, pre-player benefits was only ~$105M. Add on $15M for arb guys (including Crochet) its $120M; another $10M for pre arb is $130M. Free agent signings to date only get them to $145-150M. Player benefits and remaining 40 man costs is another $20M. That puts them at about $170M in cash spend on the roster. So they would need to spend another $30M just to get to last year's spend and something like $70M to get back to where they were 6-7 years ago.

YMMV, but that seemns like a pretty clear trend from $230-$240 to low $200s to under $200M; all in a time period where we have total inflation (and MLB revenue growth) of ~25%. I guess this could all be one really long rebuild and the back end of it they'll start spending into the $250-$270M range (inflation adjusted DD years), but we are extremely far away from that picture right now.

I'm curious why you're focused on cash costs when everything is structured around the CBT.

Buehler signing takes them up to $216m payroll.

 

[jon abbey]

From 2003 (first year of luxury tax) through 2018, eight teams paid luxury tax: Yankees (15x), Red Sox (9x), Dodgers (5x), Tigers (3x), Giants (3x), Nationals (2x), Cubs (1x), and Angels (1x)
Since 2018, thirteen teams have paid luxury tax: Yankees (4x), Dodgers (4x), Padres (4x), Phillies (3x), Mets (3x), Cubs (2x), Rangers (2x), Braves (2x), Blue Jays (2x), Giants (1x), Astros (1x), Red Sox (1x), Angels (1x)

It's not really the Sox that have changed tack (i.e. spending less), it's a lot of other teams have changed (i.e. spending more).

I mean, it's pretty clearly both from your own numbers there.

 

[mikcou]

I'm curious why you're focused on cash costs when everything is structured around the CBT.

Buehler signing takes them up to $216m payroll.

Why would I look to CBT to determine what they are spending? That is not what they are spending. Im sure Henry doesnt like paying the luxury tax, but the business pays actuals, not some CBT number. Can guarantee you their financials are not using CBT numbers.

Basically, there are two separate tracks here: 1) planning to not pay the CBT; 2) what are they paying. CBT is only the first.

Edit: Buehler brings payroll to ~$192M. Payroll has an actual meaning and it is what they are paying the players this year. CBT likely is in the $215 range mainly due to the pre-arb deals.

 

[mikcou]

They don't feel likely to go above $250mm and the ceiling may be lower. We need to get used to the idea that they won't spend in free agency to supplement the team. Its too rich for them. Player acquisition will be done via trade or by finding misfit toys like Sandoval and Buhler.

Agreed, they seem comfortable spending ~200M or so and might be willing to higher for someone truly special mid 20s free agent.

That doesnt mean they cant win using the strategies you list, but it is going to be a pretty high variance with years of just being bad/mediocre when your reclamation projects bust, which should be the general expectation especially with a double TJS Buehler.

 

[joe dokes]

Devers was a necessity that I am not sure even gets done unless Henry got publicly shamed at the Winter Classic.

This is some kind of reverse wishcasting.
Doesnt the fact that they also extended Rafaela and Bello (and at least had a conversation about it with Casas) suggest that "extending young cornerstones" is an actual strategy?

 

[Auger34]

I mean, it's pretty clearly both from your own numbers there.

Exactly.

Boston is absolutely spending less than they did before.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Its pretty contrary to the facts to say the Sox aren't spending less. Both can in fact be true (others are spending more and the Sox are spending less).

The Dave Dombrowski era had 40 man cash costs (i.e., the actual amounts that they are paying not the CBT AAV numbers) in the $230-$240M range. That number was $204M last year. Cash commitments coming into the offseason pre-arb, pre-player benefits was only ~$105M. Add on $15M for arb guys (including Crochet) its $120M; another $10M for pre arb is $130M. Free agent signings to date only get them to $145-150M. Player benefits and remaining 40 man costs is another $20M. That puts them at about $170M in cash spend on the roster. So they would need to spend another $30M just to get to last year's spend and something like $70M to get back to where they were 6-7 years ago.

YMMV, but that seemns like a pretty clear trend from $230-$240 to low $200s to under $200M; all in a time period where we have total inflation (and MLB revenue growth) of ~25%. I guess this could all be one really long rebuild and the back end of it they'll start spending into the $250-$270M range (inflation adjusted DD years), but we are extremely far away from that picture right now.

It's strange you consider the two years Dombrowski took the payroll in excess of $230M as trend setting when, set against all the other numbers from the last 15-20 years, they're pretty clearly the outlier. Spending since 2019 has more or less been in line with the pre-2018 spending patterns overall, particularly in relation to the luxury tax threshold. If you look at the yearly luxury tax threshold as the budget, they've spent at least 95% of the "budget" and have exceeded it about as often as they haven't since 2003. Just not as excessively as they did for that two year period.

 

[mikcou]

It's strange you consider the two years Dombrowski took the payroll in excess of $230M as trend setting when, set against all the other numbers from the last 15-20 years, they're pretty clearly the outlier. Spending since 2019 has more or less been in line with the pre-2018 spending patterns overall, particularly in relation to the luxury tax threshold. If you look at the yearly luxury tax threshold as the budget, they've spent at least 95% of the "budget" and have exceeded it about as often as they haven't since 2003. Just not as excessively as they did for that two year period.

I guess thats fair to some degree, but by Cots before it were 185M (2015), $200M (2016), 200M (2017), $230M (2018), $235M (2019). Prior to 2018, they dont have CBT detail numbers (or at least not what I can find) so there is no 40 man salary number or benefits number that I can find and the sum ties to all player salaries so I think you would need to add ~$15M to each of those to get the full cash out the door. At the very least, I tied out 2015 and its solely player salaries. So really we're looking at $200M (2015), $215M (2016), $215M (2017), $230M (2018) and $235M (2019). Theres not some rapid trend there, looks like bumpy but long term trend of 5% growth or so.

Even if I'm wrong on the pre-2018 numbers, I dont think its reasonable to say that you'd expect payroll to be completely flat for a decade (which is what $200M represents). Almost no businesses operate in that way in any sector. With any sort of base inflation (read not player salary growth which is higher, but just base inflation), those years would be equivalent to spending $250M+ now.

They are spending less. Its really not complicated. They can certainly change in the future, but for now, it is what it is.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

They are spending less. Its really not complicated. They can certainly change in the future, but for now, it is what it is.

One of the complicating factors with discussing the Sox finances and their approach to team building is that we can't agree on basic facts. Using your methodology feels like the best we've got - ID'ing cash are they actually spending on the roster.

Does anyone have a better methodology or one that shows something different?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I guess thats fair to some degree, but by Cots before it were 185M (2015), $200M (2016), 200M (2017), $230M (2018), $235M (2019). Prior to 2018, they dont have CBT detail numbers (or at least not what I can find) so there is no 40 man salary number or benefits number that I can find and the sum ties to all player salaries so I think you would need to add ~$15M to each of those to get the full cash out the door. At the very least, I tied out 2015 and its solely player salaries. So really we're looking at $200M (2015), $215M (2016), $215M (2017), $230M (2018) and $235M (2019). Theres not some rapid trend there, looks like bumpy but long term trend of 5% growth or so.

Even if I'm wrong on the pre-2018 numbers, I dont think its reasonable to say that you'd expect payroll to be completely flat for a decade (which is what $200M represents). Almost no businesses operate in that way in any sector. With any sort of base inflation (read not player salary growth which is higher, but just base inflation), those years would be equivalent to spending $250M+ now.

They are spending less. Its really not complicated. They can certainly change in the future, but for now, it is what it is.

My point isn't that payroll was flat, but generally corresponds pretty closely to the CBT threshold, which rises annually.

I looked this up a couple months back. As you did, I ran into limitations on availability of numbers prior to 2016. But this is the payroll spending (that's CBT calculations, not cash) by the Sox, relative to the first CBT threshold since 2017.

2024 (12th in MLB) = 14M under = 94% of cap
2023 (12th in MLB) = 7M under = 96% of cap
2022 (5th in MLB) = 12M over = 105% of cap
2021 (6th in MLB) = 5M under = 97% of cap
2020 (8th in MLB) = 10M under = 95% of cap (extracting pro-rated salaries to full season numbers)
2019 (1st in MLB) = 36M over = 117% of cap
2018 (1st in MLB) = 36M over = 118% of cap
2017 (6th in MLB) = 12M under = 93% of cap

2017 also represents the first time they were outside the top 5 in payroll since at least 2003, which suggests that while they're still using the CBT threshold as a defacto budget, more teams are doing a lot more than that.

 

[mikcou]

One of the complicating factors with discussing the Sox finances and their approach to team building is that we can't agree on basic facts. Using your methodology feels like the best we've got - ID'ing cash are they actually spending on the roster.

Does anyone have a better methodology or one that shows something different?

I think the methodology below is really the only other way to do it. I personally think its a considerably weaker data set, but I guess this is what you would use as. support that spending hasnt change that much.

My point isn't that payroll was flat, but generally corresponds pretty closely to the CBT threshold, which rises annually.

I looked this up a couple months back. As you did, I ran into limitations on availability of numbers prior to 2016. But this is the payroll spending (that's CBT calculations, not cash) by the Sox, relative to the first CBT threshold since 2017.

2024 (12th in MLB) = 14M under = 94% of cap
2023 (12th in MLB) = 7M under = 96% of cap
2022 (5th in MLB) = 12M over = 105% of cap
2021 (6th in MLB) = 5M under = 97% of cap
2020 (8th in MLB) = 10M under = 95% of cap (extracting pro-rated salaries to full season numbers)
2019 (1st in MLB) = 36M over = 117% of cap
2018 (1st in MLB) = 36M over = 118% of cap
2017 (6th in MLB) = 12M under = 93% of cap

2017 also represents the first time they were outside the top 5 in payroll since at least 2003, which suggests that while they're still using the CBT threshold as a defacto budget, more teams are doing a lot more than that.

I agree that it looks much more similar if you use % of CBT. I'm not sure what it proves compared to what they are actually spending; contesting theyre spending money on a data set that isnt even intended to show the actual expense for the year is well a bit silly in my mind, especially when we have good data on what the actual expense is/was. I also dont think it is how ownership views the budget at all as that would be inconsistent with how pretty much any other business operates - businesses budget expenses and cash flows based on actuals both accruals and cash although in employee payroll those two should be the same (obviously CBT would be an input to the extent it would have a tax effect). Looking to CBT distorts how much the team has changed as until Breslow none of the three prior baseball execs signed pre-arb deals so there wasnt as nearly a significant difference in CBT and cash payroll (last year cash payroll was somewhere in the range of $17-$20M less.)

The last material extensions that was done with significant time before free agency were Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz; players whose contracts expired 8-10 years ago. That is a material change in the operations of the business that can substantially sway the CBT numbers that makes spending look closer to norm.

I could be wrong and the Red Sox will spend $250-$260M in cash when these flip (i.e., cash is more than CBT), but I think it vastly more likely that either (i) they stop some of the spend on 1 year deals; or (ii) complete other extensions to pre-arb guys where they can blend down the cash spend significantly.

Another side point and one of the reasons you see more and more teams spending over the CBT - the CBT threshold has been growing very slowly; it was a huge win for owners in the last few CBAs. When the CBT is growing less than inflation, never mind substantially less than revenue, teams will likely trend to higher %s of the threshold.