Payroll Obligations 2015-2019

[LDF]

We know for sure they are stockpiling injured guys, big arms and no control, unsigned free agents, Hanson, Noesi, Cleto , Frank Francisco anyone with a pulse and potential . Hoping for that needle in the haystack guy they always seem to come up with. Get them on the cheap and turn them into gold.

when a farm is ranked from #20-25 and some of those prospect graduate. I wonder what the ranking is going to

look like now

[ScottyDo]

I really think the team can and will employ both of these strategies. I don't know if he's considered a big time FA, but Justin Masterson is a guy that would make sense. Sinkerballer, RH, expensive but not grotesquely expensive. I'd want Shields (depending on the price) but Masterson seems to be more aligned with the team's tendencies.

I agree that Masterson would be a great target for us for all the reasons you mentioned, depending on how this year's development turns out. The arrow is pointing up right now, but we haven't played a game in May yet, so that may change.

[LDF]

We know for sure they are stockpiling injured guys, big arms and no control, unsigned free agents, Hanson, Noesi, Cleto , Frank Francisco anyone with a pulse and potential . Hoping for that needle in the haystack guy they always seem to come up with. Get them on the cheap and turn them into gold.

in addition, we may get lucky and do find that golden needle.

[oldsox]

It's too early to know if that's the case.

 

Besides, after Morales-Drew-Santana-Cruz debacle, there's rumors that the union will move to renegotiate draft pick compensation as it makes no sense what so ever.

Of course, it also made no sense whatsoever for those four players to be offered $14++ Million for one year by their old teams, but that's another subject. I hope they do change that rule.

[Eminor3rd]

when a farm is ranked from #20-25 and some of those prospect graduate. I wonder what the ranking is going to

look like now

 

I expect it to continue to improve with a strong draft. This is the highest we've picked in a long time, and we are committed to spending competitively like never before.

[LDF]

It isnt dying, it has merely been changed to green

 

I like reddish b/c of my bad eyesight.

[LDF]

I expect it to continue to improve with a strong draft. This is the highest we've picked in a long time, and we are committed to spending competitively like never before.

 

but the subtraction of players now in the majors will indeed drop the rank. yeah we will improve via the draft. not enuf in the

short term.

[Eminor3rd]

but the subtraction of players now in the majors will indeed drop the rank. yeah we will improve via the draft. not enuf in the

short term.

 

I disagree. Who will lose rookie eligibility? Semien, probably. Leury for sure. EJ might not at this point. Davidson probably won't at this pointAvisail had already lost it.

 

It may be only Semien in the top 5.

[southsider2k5]

I expect it to continue to improve with a strong draft. This is the highest we've picked in a long time, and we are committed to spending competitively like never before.

 

This year we will have two draft picks this year before the point they drafted Keenyn Walker in.

[southsider2k5]

I disagree. Who will lose rookie eligibility? Semien, probably. Leury for sure. EJ might not at this point. Davidson probably won't at this pointAvisail had already lost it.

 

It may be only Semien in the top 5.

 

Davidson was on the ML roster for 51 days. Does he have any left?

[Y2Jimmy0]

but the subtraction of players now in the majors will indeed drop the rank. yeah we will improve via the draft. not enuf in the

short term.

 

 

No way. They will be higher. They will add two pretty hight picks. Also, guys like Rondon, Engel, Michalczewski, Danish. I think Sox can be in the #15-#20 range easily.

[Marty34]

Keeping draft picks, using them well, signing international FAs, investing in your scouting/development team, analyzing potentially undervalued assets using advanced metrics and scouting, signing low-risk high-reward guys, signing the occasional and very targeted FA acquisition, and saving your bullets until you can make them count.

 

This isn't exactly revolutionary thinking. In fact, I'd venture to say its the preferred method since the moneyball days, but you know stuff happens that makes teams have to deviate from this master plan.

 

EDIT: Totally agree, the above is the extremely hard part. But Marty's wish for a blank check is a pipe dream. Only two teams have really made it work, and they're two of the richest teams in baseball. Even LAD has 0 recent championships to boast about.

 

$100M payroll per over the next 5 years isn't a blank check. They can easily take a top 3 free agent pitcher next year and have plenty of room to spare,

 

[ScottyDo]

This isn't exactly revolutionary thinking. In fact, I'd venture to say its the preferred method since the moneyball days, but you know stuff happens that makes teams have to deviate from this master plan.

I know it's not revolutionary, but it's a more reasonable way to develop a long-term winner than acting like you can spend a ton of money every offseason. You can spend money, and of course the Sox WILL spend money, but you pick your timing based on reasonable projections of your core's performance down the line. You do so because if you don't, you will be mired in terrible contracts and hemorrhaging money. Not a sustainable plan.

 

$100M payroll per over the next 5 years isn't a blank check. They can easily take a top 3 free agent pitcher next year and have plenty of room to spare

Depending on development this year, the pitcher, and the price, I hope they do.

 

The reason I used the phrase "blank check" is because you're referencing the Yankees as though they're a comparable model for us to follow.

[southsider2k5]

This isn't exactly revolutionary thinking. In fact, I'd venture to say its the preferred method since the moneyball days, but you know stuff happens that makes teams have to deviate from this master plan.

 

 

 

$100M payroll per over the next 5 years isn't a blank check. They can easily take a top 3 free agent pitcher next year and have plenty of room to spare,

 

Nice revisionist history there. You were calling for big signings long before the 2015 to 2019 range, even when our payroll obligations where much higher.

[Marty34]

Nice revisionist history there. You were calling for big signings long before the 2015 to 2019 range, even when our payroll obligations where much higher.

 

When?

[Balta1701]

When?

Prior to the 2013 season you were all about signing Josh Hamilton, for example, and that was prior to the removal of contracts like Peavy and Rios as well as removal of guys like Reed who were closer to arbitration.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I disagree. Who will lose rookie eligibility? Semien, probably. Leury for sure. EJ might not at this point. Davidson probably won't at this pointAvisail had already lost it.

 

It may be only Semien in the top 5.

 

 

Davidson was on the ML roster for 51 days. Does he have any left?

 

Rookie eligibility is lost when a player reaches 50 IP, 130 AB or 45 days on the active roster before September 1.

 

EJ went over 50 innings. He will not be considered a rookie after this year even if he doesn't come back up at all this year.

 

MD is still a rookie as he didn't come up until August last year so he only has 20 or so days service time before September 1 and hasn't reached the 130 AB threshhold yet.

[Marty34]

Prior to the 2013 season you were all about signing Josh Hamilton, for example, and that was prior to the removal of contracts like Peavy and Rios as well as removal of guys like Reed who were closer to arbitration.

 

Provide a link, Balta. You're know all about context.

[southsider2k5]

Prior to the 2013 season you were all about signing Josh Hamilton, for example, and that was prior to the removal of contracts like Peavy and Rios as well as removal of guys like Reed who were closer to arbitration.

 

And Zack Grienke

[witesoxfan]

Here's a nice quote from Dave Cameron via The Hardball Times

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/10-things-i-l...seball-economy/

 

Higher payrolls provide higher margin for error, and in today’s economy, even one bad deal won’t end a team’s chances of winning, but no team can simply declare that payroll efficiency is just for the Moneyball teams that need to worry about such things. Spending money as efficiently as possible isn’t the goal, but it is a very good means to that end, regardless of how much capital a team’s owners are putting toward player payroll.

 

This was the point during the Santana/Jimenez/Voldemort discussions, and it will still hold true moving forward. If signing a pitcher makes sense in both the short and long term, even if the team won't be certain of winning in 2015, they will do so. They can also trade for a pitcher, and this has been the preferred method in the past (and my guess is that it will be the preferred method moving forward too. While there are certain risks you take giving up players while also assuming contractual obligations to the pitcher, it's usually not with the trade off of an immediate 6-7 year backloaded commitment, so they are minimizing long-term risk). But, if cost or age or length of deal or injury concerns or compensation concerns arise, it simply may not be economical to make such a move. As the classic economist phrase goes: it depends.

[Eminor3rd]

lol Marty. Are denying that you've been calling for us top sign practically every major free agent that has been on the market over the last few years?

 

As we've all explained nigh 8000 times, no one is against the concept of acquiring elite free agents in general. Our problem with your recommendations is (1) that you tend to want to buy whoever is available, whether they're really worth it or not. All free agent classes are NOT created equal, and (2) that you are ignoring the fact that signing someone to a multi-year deal today means they are still on the payroll in the future. Yes, you can sign more than one big one, but really only a few. Ubaldo Santana wouldn't kill us this year, but when you want to add another couple players next year, all of a sudden we're getting close to maxed out for the next 5 or 6 years -- hopefully they are all defying aging curves and hopefully we guessed right that we'd need them.

 

The reality is that FAs pay their maximum value upfront, and so you need to time their acquisition with when you need them most. Sign them when they are the final pieces.

[Marty34]

lol Marty. Are denying that you've been calling for us top sign practically every major free agent that has been on the market over the last few years?

 

As we've all explained nigh 8000 times, no one is against the concept of acquiring elite free agents in general. Our problem with your recommendations is (1) that you tend to want to buy whoever is available, whether they're really worth it or not. All free agent classes are NOT created equal, and (2) that you are ignoring the fact that signing someone to a multi-year deal today means they are still on the payroll in the future. Yes, you can sign more than one big one, but really only a few. Ubaldo Santana wouldn't kill us this year, but when you want to add another couple players next year, all of a sudden we're getting close to maxed out for the next 5 or 6 years -- hopefully they are all defying aging curves and hopefully we guessed right that we'd need them.

 

The reality is that FAs pay their maximum value upfront, and so you need to time their acquisition with when you need them most. Sign them when they are the final pieces.

 

The thing you don't get is the alternative to not filling holes via free agency is just as risky as these killer contracts.

[hogan873]

The thing you don't get is the alternative to not filling holes via free agency is just as risky as these killer contracts.

Not filling gaping holes is foolish, but not necessarily risky. It's riskier to sign a free agent to a huge contract which in turn limits your ability to fill other holes or to get into a situation where you're handcuffed for years to come. Teams like the Sox have to be smart when it comes to free agents. I think we've already established that the Sox cannot act like the Yankees and sign whoever for whatever.

Edited May 2, 2014 by pittshoganerkoff

[Eminor3rd]

The thing you don't get is the alternative to not filling holes via free agency is just as risky as these killer contracts.

 

Did you even read what I just typed? If you did, how did you come away with the notion that I think we shouldn't fill holes via free agency?

[Marty34]

Did you even read what I just typed? If you did, how did you come away with the notion that I think we shouldn't fill holes via free agency?

 

That's right Paulino was a free-agent. Funny aside, I don't see how a bad contract hurts a team more than having an awful farm system.