Should the Sox Buy Some Wins?

[Yo La Tengo]

An interesting blog post by Sean Beney, with this relevant blurb: "A linear regression model predicting wins from payroll suggests that one additional win can be “bought” with around $2.5 million. Consider that a team on the cusp of the playoffs - say with 85 wins - can essentially “buy” their way to 90 wins and theoretically lock a playoff spot with a $12.5 million payroll addition." (and I'll leave it to the math folks if a linear regression model is not the right fit)

I've been harping on the idea that the Sox should be comfortable spending up to the second CBT threshold ($277 million this year), based on their young roster, minimal long term commitments, and realistic chance of playing in the postseason. This would include taking on bad contracts in order to trade lesser prospects in deals. So let's go buy some wins!

https://substack.com/home/post/p-146786444

And here is a link to the SOSH discussion of CBT stuff:

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/to-exceed-the-cbt-or-not-that-is-the-question.41512/

 

[Yo La Tengo]

A couple of interesting charts (adjusted to 2024 dollars):

 

[Yo La Tengo]

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Weird that a "1998 to 2024" chart would list the Expos, who moved to DC in 2005

 

[simplicio]

How much do we have to spend to move to the central?

 

[Ale Xander]

I would spend every penny of John and Linda’s fortune to get a WS trophy for 2024

 

[YTF]

I would spend every penny of John and Linda’s fortune to get a WS trophy for 2024

And what after that?

 

[Ale Xander]

And what after that?

Then he can sell to someone else

rinse lather repeat

 

[MFYankees]

I believe Cot's has us at 18.9M below the first CBT threshold. There's some room even if ownership won't cross that threshold.

 

[Sin Duda]

Then he can sell to someone else

rinse lather repeat

I never understood that phrase, even if you have it flip-flopped. Do people really lather, rinse, then lather and rinse again? Seems not only wasteful, but damaging to the hair.

 

[YTF]

I never understood that phrase, even if you have it flip-flopped. Do people really lather, rinse, then lather and rinse again? Seems not only wasteful, but damaging to the hair.

Shampoo and then conditioner? Just a guess as I have no need for either.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

I never understood that phrase, even if you have it flip-flopped. Do people really lather, rinse, then lather and rinse again? Seems not only wasteful, but damaging to the hair.

They want you to use twice as much shampoo. It worked for Alia Seltzer.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

I’m pretty sure this analysis doesn’t distinguish between pre-arb and FA players, and is only considering major league payroll and not all other expenses of drafting and developing. Tango and others went through this 20+ years ago to come up with the cost of marginal wins as being on the free agent market.

Edit: he’s also not including any concept of replacement level/major league minimum.

 

[scottyno]

A graph that covers 98-2023 seems pretty meaningless considering how much has changed in the economics of baseball in those 25 years. Teams can't leverage money now like they used to.

 

[DadOfFenway]

In John Henry's eyes... doesn't more wins = more fans = more potential WS titles? Wit that it only increases the value of the team... Spend $ and increase the value of your asset.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I believe that if this thread were merged with the "crying poverty" thread, SoSH would be swallowed up by a black hole

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I never understood that phrase, even if you have it flip-flopped. Do people really lather, rinse, then lather and rinse again? Seems not only wasteful, but damaging to the hair.

 

[ALiveH]

with almost 2/3 of the season now done, the payroll addition for the rest of the season would have to be about 3x or about $7.5M per win.

If it's an expiring contract or a contract with positive value, different story, but if it carries into future years then it significantly impacts future financial flexibility.

 

[LogansDad]

I believe that if this thread were merged with the "crying poverty" thread, SoSH would be swallowed up by a black hole

Word. Someone should try it.

 

[azsoxpatsfan]

Word. Someone should try it.

But please move it to V&N

 

[LogansDad]

But please move it to V&N

Definitely the best place to test the theory.

 

[azsoxpatsfan]

Definitely the best place to test the theory.

I just want it somewhere I can’t see it

 

[Sin Duda]

View attachment 85868

Yeah, I think that's the Procter & Gambles of the world scamming us. Toothpaste commercials show a squirt that covers the whole long brush head with a line of toothpaste when all one needs is a pea-sized blob of it.

 

[Over Guapo Grande]

Yeah, I think that's the Procter & Gambles of the world scamming us. Toothpaste commercials show a squirt that covers the whole long brush head with a line of toothpaste when all one needs is a pea-sized blob of it.

That squirt has a name you know. And there was a lawsuit and a counter lawsuit between AquaFresh and Colgate about using the "nurdle".

And yes I am a nurdle for knowing that.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Yeah, I think that's the Procter & Gambles of the world scamming us. Toothpaste commercials show a squirt that covers the whole long brush head with a line of toothpaste when all one needs is a pea-sized blob of it.

https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/10/11/267035/

Turns out back in the day, people only washed their hair 1X or 2X a week plus put a lot of goop in their hair (anyone remember Brylcreem?) so repeating was more functional. (and sold more shampoo..)

Apparently, it wasn't until the 1970s when daily hair washing became popular (https://www.gethistories.com/p/a-history-of-shampoo). I guess after that time "I have to wash my hair" was no longer an excuse to turn down dates. But for me, put shampoo as one of the big advantages modern society has over the past (and hot running water being another).

Sorry, what we were talking about again?

 

[Ale Xander]

They should definitely buy some relievers.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

In John Henry's eyes... doesn't more wins = more fans = more potential WS titles? Wit that it only increases the value of the team... Spend $ and increase the value of your asset.

Hasn't he done that? The valuation of the team has tripled in the 20-odd years he's owned the team, during which time the team has won more championships than anyone else. It's not a linear thing where the more you spend, the more you win and the more valuable the franchise becomes. There is a point where the return is going to slow down. It's about balancing the ratio to maximize the return. He seems to have done a fairly good job of that overall, despite how we might feel about some of the choices made the last few years.

 

[Sin Duda]

https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/10/11/267035/

Turns out back in the day, people only washed their hair 1X or 2X a week plus put a lot of goop in their hair (anyone remember Brylcreem?) so repeating was more functional. (and sold more shampoo..)

Apparently, it wasn't until the 1970s when daily hair washing became popular (https://www.gethistories.com/p/a-history-of-shampoo). I guess after that time "I have to wash my hair" was no longer an excuse to turn down dates. But for me, put shampoo as one of the big advantages modern society has over the past (and hot running water being another).

Sorry, what we were talking about again?

Okay, that makes sense. My mom, who was born the day Knute Rockne died in a plane crash (3/31/31) washes her hair once a week. Thanks Wade Boggs Chicken Dinner. Did you buy Wade Boggs' book Foul Tips back in the day? I probably still have it (in a closet at the home of my aforementioned mom).

 

[Yo La Tengo]

I believe that if this thread were merged with the "crying poverty" thread, SoSH would be swallowed up by a black hole

Yeah, my hope was this would be a thread to discuss how to best leverage the Sox financial advantages at this trade deadline and beyond. I suggested elsewhere looking to take on bad contracts (Benintendi and Patrick Corbin were two suggested targets) in order to minimize the prospect costs in a trade. Obviously trades for established players work similarly. And, in theory, the team could be looking to extend some of their young players. But, that didn't get much traction. So, I'm fine if the powers-that-be want to shut this down, although I'm not taking the blame for the shampoo digression.

 

[Benj4ever]

An interesting blog post by Sean Beney, with this relevant blurb: "A linear regression model predicting wins from payroll suggests that one additional win can be “bought” with around $2.5 million. Consider that a team on the cusp of the playoffs - say with 85 wins - can essentially “buy” their way to 90 wins and theoretically lock a playoff spot with a $12.5 million payroll addition." (and I'll leave it to the math folks if a linear regression model is not the right fit)

I've been harping on the idea that the Sox should be comfortable spending up to the second CBT threshold ($277 million this year), based on their young roster, minimal long term commitments, and realistic chance of playing in the postseason. This would include taking on bad contracts in order to trade lesser prospects in deals. So let's go buy some wins!

https://substack.com/home/post/p-146786444

And here is a link to the SOSH discussion of CBT stuff:

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/to-exceed-the-cbt-or-not-that-is-the-question.41512/

This will work...just as soon as the game is played on paper.

 

[chrisfont9]

Yeah, my hope was this would be a thread to discuss how to best leverage the Sox financial advantages at this trade deadline and beyond. I suggested elsewhere looking to take on bad contracts (Benintendi and Patrick Corbin were two suggested targets) in order to minimize the prospect costs in a trade. Obviously trades for established players work similarly. And, in theory, the team could be looking to extend some of their young players. But, that didn't get much traction. So, I'm fine if the powers-that-be want to shut this down, although I'm not taking the blame for the shampoo digression.

The general statistics about buying wins is across the roster, across seasons, across mlb etc etc, which isn't really getting at a particular short term solution for a particular team (and doesn't interest me). So I appreciate the more tangible discussion you'd like to have. Whether they buy wins or trade prospects, let's get back to that. John Henry can't simply spend $7.5m and get three wins this year.