Salary Relief

[BamaDoc]

Assuming the Sox continue trading our vets, we could have a very low payroll the next couple of years. The low payroll got me thinking of another creative way to acquire talent. Salary dumps are not necessarily new, though they would be to the Sox as usually we receive money in deals not the other way around. I read some articles discussing the finer points on high spending penalties in the new CBA. They can be significant. I also read about the Dodgers high debt to cash flow which they MUST comply with and it got me thinking. For the Dodgers, who still want to spend on Turner and Jansen, they are multi year offenders of being over the cap. Counting international signing penalties, if they sign more players it may be an effective 100% tax. They have three awful contracts...

 

Eithier owed $20 million (could cost them $40 with tax)

 

Kazmir owed two years at over $35 (cost them $70)

 

McCarthy owed two years at over $22(cost them $44)

 

 

Because of the debt service rules and even in general, if you start talking about 40 million it matters. Even if the Dodgers kicked in some cash in a deal, every dollar we pay they save two. So would they do a lopsided trade where we get prospects in return for their true relief being dollars? Remember it cost the Red Sox over $60 million to acquire Moncada. Depending on the money we pay it would be another way to get talent. I realize it is unlikely as we have never been a spending team but if something happens with the Dodgers and anyone, if these players are involved this may be why the deal looks like a Dodger loss.

[southsider2k5]

I would love to see them dig into the Dodgers position player prospect stash, and taking on a player or two in salary relief to do it is perfectly fine with me.

 

They just have so much talent laying around, including power bats, catchers, July 2, and Cuban players so you really can build any kind of deal you want with them.

[Dick Allen]

I don't see how that really works out for all involved. In the short term, the tax teams would just bite the bullet because if they give their better prospects away to save money, they will be in the position of having to spend more money to remain competitive because their system sucks.

[southsider2k5]

I don't see how that really works out for all involved. In the short term, the tax teams would just bite the bullet because if they give their better prospects away to save money, they will be in the position of having to spend more money to remain competitive because their system sucks.

 

The Dodgers have the prospect depth to do it though.

[BamaDoc]

I don't see how that really works out for all involved. In the short term, the tax teams would just bite the bullet because if they give their better prospects away to save money, they will be in the position of having to spend more money to remain competitive because their system sucks.

 

 

The Dodgers want to spend more (Jansen Turner) and are seemingly in a perpetual win now mode. There are MLB mandated rules regarding debt that they must comply with and at 100% tax level that is harder to achieve. I don't have a link but what I saw indicated they are out of compliance or nearly so now.

[Dick Allen]

The Dodgers have the prospect depth to do it though.

1-1 draft slot is now $7.4 million. Taking on $20-30 million should net multiple top prospects. I just don't think it is feasible.

[Al Lopez's Ghost]

I agree with the general idea , but the new luxury tax rules are being phased in. For 2017, teams are penalized the avearage of the old rules and new rules. In 2018, the new rules take over.

Also, I thought I saw that if Q is traded we will have something like $3 million committed in contracts in 2018, although with Shields I'm not sure how that can be true.

[ChiSox59]

I agree with the general idea , but the new luxury tax rules are being phased in. For 2017, teams are penalized the avearage of the old rules and new rules. In 2018, the new rules take over.

Also, I thought I saw that if Q is traded we will have something like $3 million committed in contracts in 2018, although with Shields I'm not sure how that can be true.

 

SOX SALARY OBLIGATIONS

 

Sox have $35M on the books for 2018, only $2.25M on the books for 2019 - which is only the buyouts in Shields, Q and Jones' contracts. Obviously pretty likely Q and Jones club options would be picked up.

[Eminor3rd]

1-1 draft slot is now $7.4 million. Taking on $20-30 million should net multiple top prospects. I just don't think it is feasible.

 

I think your general premise is correct, but be careful with the "Dave Roberts Prospect Valuation Model." First round picks are worth substantially more than their slot values.

[southsider2k5]

I agree with the general idea , but the new luxury tax rules are being phased in. For 2017, teams are penalized the avearage of the old rules and new rules. In 2018, the new rules take over.

Also, I thought I saw that if Q is traded we will have something like $3 million committed in contracts in 2018, although with Shields I'm not sure how that can be true.

 

The new top end luxury tax penalty is 92.5%, versus I believe 50%. For a team already in debt problems, that could be a huge problem.

[KMule2545]

In theory, I love the idea - it makes too much sense for a rebuilding team. The Blue Jays just gave up Drew Hutchinson to take on Liriano's salary + receive prospects Reese McGuire and Harold Ramirez. So essentially they gave up a bad pitcher to get a good, more expensive pitcher and got two or their now 7 or so top prospects. That's an awesome deal. The Braves did something similar (I don't recall the exact deal) in getting top pitching prospect Touki Toussaint.

 

Even with low payrolls, I'm not gonna believe the Sox will be interested in taking on money to add more talent until proven otherwise. JR has always been one of the cheapest owners in the league.

[TheFutureIsNear]

It's a good idea in theory, just not sure how realistic it is that it will actually happen. You see it a lot in the NBA, but maybe the stricter luxury tax rules will make it more common in baseball though.

 

I could see something where we get 1 of these overpriced guys back + prospect in exchange for Robertson. Of course we should receive a little extra bump in the prospect package in return for taking on their trash. That way the Dodgers are at least breaking even payroll wise.

 

Robertson for McCarthy, Calhoun, and Sheffield. Or something along those lines.

[Y2Jimmy0]

It's a good idea in theory, just not sure how realistic it is that it will actually happen. You see it a lot in the NBA, but maybe the stricter luxury tax rules will make it more common in baseball though.

 

I could see something where we get 1 of these overpriced guys back + prospect in exchange for Robertson. Of course we should receive a little extra bump in the prospect package in return for taking on their trash. That way the Dodgers are at least breaking even payroll wise.

 

Robertson for McCarthy, Calhoun, and Sheffield. Or something along those lines.

 

 

For example, White Sox should be willing to take back Jhonny Peralta in return for Frazier with a better prospect coming back to White Sox. Maybe something like Frazier and a reliever for Carson Kelly, DeJong and Peralta. Sox can play Peralta and trade him at the deadline

[bmags]

My initial impression is that the dodgers care far less about this than White Sox fans think the Dodgers care about this, but I would be down for a long overdue BMac reunion.

[kwill]

So now that the Dodgers just dropped about 150 million dollars today we can take them out of the discussion of giving a s*** about how much money they spend.

 

Teams as dollars on dollars.

[BamaDoc]

So now that the Dodgers just dropped about 150 million dollars today we can take them out of the discussion of giving a s*** about how much money they spend.

 

Teams as dollars on dollars.

 

 

Or it may encourage them to do something . It will be telling if the contracts yearly amounts are lower in year one and two or if there is deferred money.

[bmags]

My initial impression is that the dodgers care far less about this than White Sox fans think the Dodgers care about this, but I would be down for a long overdue BMac reunion.

 

This held up well.

[steveno89]

This held up well.

 

Why would we want to take on bad contracts right now? The Dodgers have been very unwilling to deal prospects and I don't expect them to change course on that

 

I'd rather us clean house, trim the payroll and have a ton of flexibility going forward

[Chisoxfn]

Assuming the Sox continue trading our vets, we could have a very low payroll the next couple of years. The low payroll got me thinking of another creative way to acquire talent. Salary dumps are not necessarily new, though they would be to the Sox as usually we receive money in deals not the other way around. I read some articles discussing the finer points on high spending penalties in the new CBA. They can be significant. I also read about the Dodgers high debt to cash flow which they MUST comply with and it got me thinking. For the Dodgers, who still want to spend on Turner and Jansen, they are multi year offenders of being over the cap. Counting international signing penalties, if they sign more players it may be an effective 100% tax. They have three awful contracts...

 

Eithier owed $20 million (could cost them $40 with tax)

 

Kazmir owed two years at over $35 (cost them $70)

 

McCarthy owed two years at over $22(cost them $44)

 

 

Because of the debt service rules and even in general, if you start talking about 40 million it matters. Even if the Dodgers kicked in some cash in a deal, every dollar we pay they save two. So would they do a lopsided trade where we get prospects in return for their true relief being dollars? Remember it cost the Red Sox over $60 million to acquire Moncada. Depending on the money we pay it would be another way to get talent. I realize it is unlikely as we have never been a spending team but if something happens with the Dodgers and anyone, if these players are involved this may be why the deal looks like a Dodger loss.

Great post and I like this idea. It also is a way to take on guys and see if you could turn around and then spin them elsewhere (after eating a chunk of their contract). Interesting idea, especially because of the added money impacting those luxury tax teams. You do have to be careful though, because you don't want to take on a player, who wouldn't fit in with the clubhouse, as you want to have the right veterans around the young players. We do have to be careful though, because you need to make sure you don't take on too much appetite when it comes to this and hinder ability to make other moves (whether your team speeds up or a player you like is available, but might cost a bit salary wise).

[Southwest Sider]

That the Dodgers would rather spend all that money on free agents and taxes actually disgusts me. They are so protective of their prospects that they'd rather pay millions in tax penalites? They don't need every single one of those prospects and I believed it would be more prudent to swap some unproven prospects for good veteran players. Whatever, screw them. Hope they finally miss out on the playoffs in 2017.

[ptatc]

That the Dodgers would rather spend all that money on free agents and taxes actually disgusts me. They are so protective of their prospects that they'd rather pay millions in tax penalites? They don't need every single one of those prospects and I believed it would be more prudent to swap some unproven prospects for good veteran players. Whatever, screw them. Hope they finally miss out on the playoffs in 2017.

They realize that most prospect don't pan out. The more they keep, the better chance they have of getting a cheap, viable MLB player. This may be how they off set the FA contracts down the road.

[bmags]

I was skeptical of this strategy and have been talking both sides of this, so take my analysis with a grain of salt.

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=15365

 

But I read that and think "huh, maybe taking McCarthy WOULD get us back a prospect".

[Chisoxfn]

I was skeptical of this strategy and have been talking both sides of this, so take my analysis with a grain of salt.

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=15365

 

But I read that and think "huh, maybe taking McCarthy WOULD get us back a prospect".

It is why I would be open to a trade for Q that also included us taking on a McCarthy, especially if it maximized the upside pieces we could get (and I think that would be an easier sale across the board for the Dodgers front office).

[bmags]

It is why I would be open to a trade for Q that also included us taking on a McCarthy, especially if it maximized the upside pieces we could get (and I think that would be an easier sale across the board for the Dodgers front office).

 

See I still don't read that and think they are at all interested in gutting their system. Just that they would see value in removing $10 million for a 10-20 prospect.

[Rowand44]

It is why I would be open to a trade for Q that also included us taking on a McCarthy, especially if it maximized the upside pieces we could get (and I think that would be an easier sale across the board for the Dodgers front office).

Do we have to trade them a Soxtalk poster if we're getting one back in return?