Sox owners want to be under cap in '20

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,290
The wrong side of the bridge....
Yes. And I can understand why that would be a concern. It's just the first time they've really implied that it's going to get in the way of putting together a team, at least that I recall.
Well, up till now they've chosen not to let it get in the way, but as stepson points out, the CBA makes ignoring the LT a self-limiting strategy--the longer you pursue it, the harder it gets to continue. So it was pretty much inevitable that at some point, they were going to have to adjust their approach in response to the tax. This just happens to be that point (or at least, so they tell us -- let's see what actually happens).
 
Last edited:

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
6,658
I wonder if ownership's concern is actually rooted in a plan to pay whatever they need to pay to retain Mookie beyond 2020? A $40 million annual salary could cost as much as $58 million if they are at the highest tax rate.
 

The Allented Mr Ripley

holden
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2003
11,711
South Shore, MA
Given the barren farm system, I think the draft pick penalties and severe reduction in international signing bonus pool money that come with being a repeat offender against the LT threshold are just as much as a concern (if not more).
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,959
Twin Cities
Given the barren farm system, I think the draft pick penalties and severe reduction in international signing bonus pool money that come with being a repeat offender against the LT threshold are just as much as a concern (if not more).
I agree. I think they are trying to be responsible and future-thinking here, even if fans would like them to continue blowing past the tax thesholds and accepting the increasing penalties. Is there another franchise that has consistently spent over the LT limits and not eventually reset?
 

chawson

Well-Known Member
Bronze Supporter
Aug 1, 2006
1,583
Given the barren farm system, I think the draft pick penalties and severe reduction in international signing bonus pool money that come with being a repeat offender against the LT threshold are just as much as a concern (if not more).
I think this is accurate. As much as it’s fair to demand Henry pay up for one of New England’s best athletes (and he still should), there are legitimate baseball reasons for getting under the cap. The fact that he’d been willing to spend liberally over the last five years should attest to that. It’s the CBA’s heavy sanctions against roster construction that screwed us.
 

judyb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
4,423
I wonder if ownership's concern is actually rooted in a plan to pay whatever they need to pay to retain Mookie beyond 2020? A $40 million annual salary could cost as much as $58 million if they are at the highest tax rate.
I was wondering that, too, if they get under next season they wouldn't be repeat offenders in the first year of Mookie's next contract, new CBA after that season could end up making big changes to CBT limits and penalties, and Price's contract ends after the next season.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
6,083
I was wondering that, too, if they get under next season they wouldn't be repeat offenders in the first year of Mookie's next contract, new CBA after that season could end up making big changes to CBT limits and penalties, and Price's contract ends after the next season.
It's a good time to reset if they can. Next year they would pay a 50% for any overages, and continue to pay that every year they're over. Who knows what that goes to in the new CBA. Going into that with a clean sheet or closer to it would be nice, just to reduce uncertainty.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I was wondering that, too, if they get under next season they wouldn't be repeat offenders in the first year of Mookie's next contract, new CBA after that season could end up making big changes to CBT limits and penalties, and Price's contract ends after the next season.
Speaking of Price, I see the Globe is proposing that he be traded. Is Price tradeable? Probably yes if the Sox eat at least half the money.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
6,658
Speaking of Price, I see the Globe is proposing that he be traded. Is Price tradeable? Probably yes if the Sox eat at least half the money.
Price needs to show that he is over the wrist injury before any team is going to take on even a small portion of that contract. It does the Red Sox no good if they are still on the hook for the majority of his salary - might as well keep him at that point and see if his value increases.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,877
Maine
Price needs to show that he is over the wrist injury before any team is going to take on even a small portion of that contract. It does the Red Sox no good if they are still on the hook for the majority of his salary - might as well keep him at that point and see if his value increases.
Great point. It really makes no sense for the Red Sox to be trading anyone currently on the roster and paying part of their salary to play elsewhere. That's what you do with players who aren't contributors when healthy, and every potential albatross on the payroll is entirely tied to the player's health and ability to take the field.

When healthy, David Price is a big time contributor and likely to be of more value to the Red Sox pitching for them at $31M AAV than pitching elsewhere while still costing them $10M+. Same goes for Sale and frankly, Eovaldi too. I don't think you can or should trade any of them unless their entire salary is being cleared off the books.
 

Muppet

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 25, 2012
412
Drunk
I'm hoping that the sudden need to reset the LT is to coincide with giving Mookie his deal next year and adding other pieces. I don't think anyone here would lose a large amount of sleep if the Sox shed payroll, provided it isn't at the expense of Mookie.

I'm going to remain optimistic whilst stocking up on hangover gummies for the inevitable bender when it goes bad.
 

santadevil

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
3,953
Saskatchestan
I'm hoping that the sudden need to reset the LT is to coincide with giving Mookie his deal next year and adding other pieces. I don't think anyone here would lose a large amount of sleep if the Sox shed payroll, provided it isn't at the expense of Mookie.

I'm going to remain optimistic whilst stocking up on hangover gummies for the inevitable bender when it goes bad.
I'm with you on this, except for the hangover gummies. I need to try those
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,290
The wrong side of the bridge....
Going back to Pedroia, I am the only one who thinks it's much more likely that he retires?

If he reaches an agreeement with the FO can't he basically get a full buyout that does not count against the CBT?
If they negotiate a buyout, it's a buyout of his existing contract, and therefore wouldn't it count toward the CBT the same as if the buyout had been negotiated into the contract in the first place?
 

leftfieldlegacy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
672
North Jersey
Going back to Pedroia, I am the only one who thinks it's much more likely that he retires?

If he reaches an agreeement with the FO can't he basically get a full buyout that does not count against the CBT?
The short answer is no. He cannot negotiate a buyout with the FO to circumvent the luxury tax. If that were possible no team would ever need to insure player contracts. The Mets insured David Wright's contract and only had to pay 25% of the contract's value when it was determined that he could no longer play due to spinal issues. Pedroia's contract is not insured. If Pedroia retires he would get nothing. If he doesn't retire, the Red Sox only choice would be to release him and pay him the entire balance of his contract. I don't believe there is any middle ground.
 

The Allented Mr Ripley

holden
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2003
11,711
South Shore, MA
Is Rusney Castillo still on the books? If Pedroia retires and they shed Rusney's contract, that's another route
Castillo's contract hasn't been on the books since he cleared waivers and was sent to Pawtucket. Which is exactly why he's been trapped there for the past few years. If he gets called up, his contract counts towards the cap.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,877
Maine
Going back to Pedroia, I am the only one who thinks it's much more likely that he retires?

If he reaches an agreeement with the FO can't he basically get a full buyout that does not count against the CBT?
He could negotiate a buyout and release, same as David Wright did with the Mets, but there would be no relief for the Sox as far as the CBT goes. Wright was no longer on the Mets' roster in 2019 but he still counted for $17.25M against the CBT, and will again in 2020.

The only relief the Sox might achieve in doing such a thing is freeing up a spot on the 40-man roster. And really, that would only be a benefit in the off-season. During the season itself, he's not a 40-man roster hindrance since they can put him on the 60-day IL.
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,017
CT
Castillo's contract hasn't been on the books since he cleared waivers and was sent to Pawtucket. Which is exactly why he's been trapped there for the past few years. If he gets called up, his contract counts towards the cap.
So, is there anything preventing the Sox from doing similar with Pedroia? Place him on waivers...can't imagine anyone claiming him.....then move him off the 40-man.......continue paying him every dime he is owed.....Would this free up cap space??
 

BoSox Rule

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,840
So, is there anything preventing the Sox from doing similar with Pedroia? Place him on waivers...can't imagine anyone claiming him.....then move him off the 40-man.......continue paying him every dime he is owed.....Would this free up cap space??
Just the pesky 13 years of service time he has, which would’ve prevented the Red Sox from using the loophole that has since been closed.
 

Soxfan in Fla

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2001
7,098
The only out on Pedroia is him retiring and forfeiting the remainder of his contract. It would be great if he does. However, I wouldn’t expect him to nor do I think he should.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,811
Pedroia's cap hit is never going away, barring a trade that will never happen. There is no mechanism to get relief. It is what it is.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
6,658
Good, glad this is not even an issue for further discussion. As much as I want the Red Sox to be competitive, it should not even be a consideration to ask Dustin Pedroia to make a sacrifice to do so. He left everything he had out on the field for this franchise and its fans and deserves every penny coming his way, the same way Mookie Betts deserves whatever he can earn in his upcoming contract.

F****** Manny Machado - I never wish for any player to be injured, but I would not shed a single tear if his recklessness comes back around on him some day for what he did to Pedey. Seeing Chris Sale corkscrew him into the dirt on strike three was the sweetest way to end last year's championship run.
 

Dewey'sCannon

lurker
Jul 18, 2005
613
Maryland
Good, glad this is not even an issue for further discussion. As much as I want the Red Sox to be competitive, it should not even be a consideration to ask Dustin Pedroia to make a sacrifice to do so. He left everything he had out on the field for this franchise and its fans and deserves every penny coming his way, the same way Mookie Betts deserves whatever he can earn in his upcoming contract.

F****** Manny Machado - I never wish for any player to be injured, but I would not shed a single tear if his recklessness comes back around on him some day for what he did to Pedey. Seeing Chris Sale corkscrew him into the dirt on strike three was the sweetest way to end last year's championship run.
Amen, brother. On both counts.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
1,942
Braintree, MA
I agree. I think they are trying to be responsible and future-thinking here, even if fans would like them to continue blowing past the tax thesholds and accepting the increasing penalties. Is there another franchise that has consistently spent over the LT limits and not eventually reset?
I wonder how realistic an option it was for them to start cutting salary at this trade deadline this year. Despite bad years, June/July could have been a time to deal Porcello and Bradley. Beyond that, making the leap with JD at the same time could have resulted in a 2019 reset. Going into the trade deadline, I at least thought this was a possibility and in hindsight would have been the better move than trying to reset in 2020.

Prior to the World Series victory, there wasn't much about Dombrowski that I could legitimately complain about. I wasn't a fan of dealing the farm or not creating a bullpen, but in hindsight non of the farmhands are biting us in the butt yet. Obviously since then we have Sale and Eovaldi as questionable moves, but I'd also like to consider the non-firesale as something that should be partially on him as well.

We are also all looking at this as a 2020 problem, but if they're unable to do it in 2020, it looks like 2021 is an even tougher issue.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,877
Maine
I wonder how realistic an option it was for them to start cutting salary at this trade deadline this year. Despite bad years, June/July could have been a time to deal Porcello and Bradley. Beyond that, making the leap with JD at the same time could have resulted in a 2019 reset. Going into the trade deadline, I at least thought this was a possibility and in hindsight would have been the better move than trying to reset in 2020.

Prior to the World Series victory, there wasn't much about Dombrowski that I could legitimately complain about. I wasn't a fan of dealing the farm or not creating a bullpen, but in hindsight non of the farmhands are biting us in the butt yet. Obviously since then we have Sale and Eovaldi as questionable moves, but I'd also like to consider the non-firesale as something that should be partially on him as well.

We are also all looking at this as a 2020 problem, but if they're unable to do it in 2020, it looks like 2021 is an even tougher issue.
I just don't see how a "firesale" at the deadline this year would have worked. They were 2.5 out of the wildcard and had just taken 5 of 7 from the two teams above them in the division. As much as their inactivity caused a bit of an uproar (and maybe took some wind out of their sales), selling at the deadline may have been worse. And that's assuming there was much of a market for guys like Porcello and JBJ. It just wasn't going to happen.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,335
Castillo's contract hasn't been on the books since he cleared waivers and was sent to Pawtucket. Which is exactly why he's been trapped there for the past few years. If he gets called up, his contract counts towards the cap.
He counts against the cap if he's traded, too. The only way he'd ever be traded or called up is if the Sox are under the cap WITH Castillo on the books. Also, Rusney Castillo's contract is backloaded and he will be making 14.3 milion this year, as opposed to the $11mil+ he's made the last 5... unless he chooses to opt out of course. His contract ends next year, but I think the Redsox technically have control of him until 2025 due to some weird shit.

I have no clue how that works with an opt out. If he did opt out of the contract, would he still be under contract?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,877
Maine
He counts against the cap if he's traded, too. The only way he'd ever be traded or called up is if the Sox are under the cap WITH Castillo on the books. Also, Rusney Castillo's contract is backloaded and he will be making 14.3 milion this year, as opposed to the $11mil+ he's made the last 5... unless he chooses to opt out of course. His contract ends next year, but I think the Redsox technically have control of him until 2025 due to some weird shit.

I have no clue how that works with an opt out. If he did opt out of the contract, would he still be under contract?
He will have met the criteria to become a minor league free agent should he play out the final year of his contract. I do not believe that is the case if he opts out, or obviously if he's added to the 40-man at any point.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,811
Looks like Rusney is sticking around for his final contract year:


Once 2020 ends, he is essentially a free agent. The Sox would have to tender him a contract to retain his rights, which is obviously not going to happen.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,335
He will have met the criteria to become a minor league free agent should he play out the final year of his contract. I do not believe that is the case if he opts out, or obviously if he's added to the 40-man at any point.
Is there a minimum they would have to pay him from 2021-2025? Would he revert to the league minimum or is it something like n% of his last year's salary?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,811
Is there a minimum they would have to pay him from 2021-2025? Would he revert to the league minimum or is it something like n% of his last year's salary?
The minimum is 0. There is no obligation to keep him beyond 2020. The article I linked mentioned something about him receiving the league minimum from another team in 2021 and 2022, but unclear if that is correct.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,335
The minimum is 0. There is no obligation to keep him beyond 2020. The article I linked mentioned something about him receiving the league minimum from another team in 2021 and 2022, but unclear if that is correct.
I meant in the hypothetical scenario they actually did call him up this year and put him on the 40 man. I realize there is 0% chance of that happening, but I'm curious about the rules.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,877
Maine
Is there a minimum they would have to pay him from 2021-2025? Would he revert to the league minimum or is it something like n% of his last year's salary?
I don't think they'd be obligated to pay him any more than they'd pay any other player with his service time. He wouldn't reach arbitration eligibility until 2022 at the earliest, assuming they don't call him up until late next year.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,335
I don't think they'd be obligated to pay him any more than they'd pay any other player with his service time. He wouldn't reach arbitration eligibility until 2022 at the earliest, assuming they don't call him up until late next year.
So here's hoping Rusney Castillo hits .425/.550/.900 with 25 HRs in 200 PA with the PawSox in their last season at Pawtucket, gets called up and finishes the year hitting .320/.414/.553 with 20 HR over 300+ PA for the Boston Redsox.

It's not going to happen but it seems like another huge loophole, but the original loophole was actually closed so it doesn't matter. If the Redsox get far enough under the cap and Rusney Castillo actually is having an amazing season and they have to pay him anyway... calling him and putting him on the 40 man may actually be beneficial/the correct move.

edit: All they'd have to do next year is put him on the 40, actually. After that I'm not sure. I don't know how many options he has.
 
Last edited:

DanoooME

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
15,708
South Jersey
If they tender a contract to Rusney after his contract runs out, it would have to be for a lot of cash due to this clause:

Clubs cannot reduce players' salaries by more than 20 percent of what they earned in the previous MLB season -- including a player's base salary and additional payments such as performance bonuses, signing bonuses and deferred compensation -- or 30 percent of what they earned two seasons prior, per the Maximum Salary Reduction clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
So with Rusney making $13.5M in 2020, the least they could tender a contract for him in 2021 is $10.8M. Not happening. He's going to be a free agent. At that point, they could theoretically sign him, but why would he come back?
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
4,982
Problem was they had a winning streak going into the deadline and it appeared they were heading towards the postseason then.
I said at the time it was the worst thing that could possibly happen.

I feel like that is the epitaph for this season, emphasized by the last game of the season: the good things came at the wrong times.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
2,447
People have chimed in on this a million times already... but..... I think it's pretty obvious that Brock is gone. JBJ is likely traded for not much in return- possibly nothing at all. Obviously that still doesn't get the Sox even close to the first threshold after arb raises for next year.......
I'm just generally puzzled.... but here's one option I don't think I've seen mentioned (and I really don't want to happen). Trade Xander.
He's actually got a great long term contract, has turned into an elite hitter and is still incredibly young. He's one of my favorite players so I'm not advocating this... but this could be the one move (along with getting rid of JBJ) that could allow them to sign JDM and hold onto to Mookie long term, while also replenishing the farm system.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,877
Maine
People have chimed in on this a million times already... but..... I think it's pretty obvious that Brock is gone. JBJ is likely traded for not much in return- possibly nothing at all. Obviously that still doesn't get the Sox even close to the first threshold after arb raises for next year.......
I'm just generally puzzled.... but here's one option I don't think I've seen mentioned (and I really don't want to happen). Trade Xander.
He's actually got a great long term contract, has turned into an elite hitter and is still incredibly young. He's one of my favorite players so I'm not advocating this... but this could be the one move (along with getting rid of JBJ) that could allow them to sign JDM and hold onto to Mookie long term, while also replenishing the farm system.
So sign a guy to a relatively team friendly deal, basically anoint him the franchise guy (seems the heir apparent to the Papi/Pedroia team leader role), then trade him for parts to save some money? I'm sure that would make the process of locking up Devers long term so much easier.

If it's a choice between Bogaerts and Martinez, I'm keeping Bogaerts every time. If it's a choice between Bogaerts and Betts, well, that's a bit tougher call, but honestly I'll keep the guy who sacrificed a bit of his earning potential to stick around for the long haul.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
2,447
So sign a guy to a relatively team friendly deal, basically anoint him the franchise guy (seems the heir apparent to the Papi/Pedroia team leader role), then trade him for parts to save some money? I'm sure that would make the process of locking up Devers long term so much easier.

If it's a choice between Bogaerts and Martinez, I'm keeping Bogaerts every time. If it's a choice between Bogaerts and Betts, well, that's a bit tougher call, but honestly I'll keep the guy who sacrificed a bit of his earning potential to stick around for the long haul.
I would too.
I'm just throwing that out there as a way to pull back the spending but also add some affordable long term pieces. X and Devers are my favorite two players- even more than Betts... but I could see something like this happening. Like I said.... not advocating.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,835
I can’t see it happening at all. Betts is going to cost upwards of $30 million/year if they can re-sign him. Bogaerts is nearly as good, but a lot less expensive. Although he would bring a lot more in trade due to the contract.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,335
I would too.
I'm just throwing that out there as a way to pull back the spending but also add some affordable long term pieces. X and Devers are my favorite two players- even more than Betts... but I could see something like this happening. Like I said.... not advocating.
He'd have a ton of trade value but I don't think they'd trade him. Unlike Mookie Betts, Xander Bogaerts actually had a choice where he would end up and he chose Boston.

edit: Pretty sure he took less money in doing so as well, partly because of Jair.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,167
So sign a guy to a relatively team friendly deal, basically anoint him the franchise guy (seems the heir apparent to the Papi/Pedroia team leader role), then trade him for parts to save some money? I'm sure that would make the process of locking up Devers long term so much easier.

If it's a choice between Bogaerts and Martinez, I'm keeping Bogaerts every time. If it's a choice between Bogaerts and Betts, well, that's a bit tougher call, but honestly I'll keep the guy who sacrificed a bit of his earning potential to stick around for the long haul.
Yep, I'd sell off Martinez for a Darren Oliver-like bag of balls.