Sox avoid arbitration with JBJ
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/01/list-players-avoid-arbitration-mlb.html
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/01/list-players-avoid-arbitration-mlb.html
Bradley's new salary deserves a new thread
- Thread starter Green Monster
- Start date
CBT rules strongly discourage the Sox from giving JBJ a long-term deal. A four-year deal would increase his AAV this year and next, and the FO likely has little interest in committing to JBJ into his 30s, by which time the defensive skills that are his calling card will likely have declined.
Nice to see the FO didn't let this get acrimonious over a few hundred grand, but I wouldn't expect otherwise from a big-market club that's competently run.
Nice to see the FO didn't let this get acrimonious over a few hundred grand, but I wouldn't expect otherwise from a big-market club that's competently run.
Different position, but Cleveland gave T.Bauer $3.55M. JBJ had a better season than Bauer, so... fair deal.
Also agree re CBT impact. Unless Price opts out and we don't pay big to replace him, I doubt the team will be able to keep all the Killer B's long term (if avoiding the LT remains a goal). I think they try harder to lock up X and then Betts starting next season. Bradley might only have 3 years left with us...
Staying under the LT is a short term goal, not a long term goal. They are virtually certain of going over in 2018:
*Sale's option rent kicks in ($12.5M vs $6.5M cap hit now)
*Kimbrel's option rent kicks in ($13M vs $10.5 cap hit now)
*E-Rod goes to arbitration for the first time
*Pomeranz, Bogaerts, and Bradley will get arbitration raises
I think their plan is to stay under in 2017 and start 2018 as "first time offenders".
You forgot Mookie, who could easily jump into the $5-6MM range in his first year of eligibility.
But for now, this is a really good thing. The Sox can go year-to-year on JBJ, and still have the money to sign Xander and Mookie to multi-year extensions. Because while JBJ is likely to become very expensive by his Arb-4 season, the Sox can delay the biggest cap hit until after both Hanley and Panda are off the books.
What makes you think his defensive skills are going to decline significantly in JBJ's early 30's? While above average, he's not particularly fast from point A to point B. I was of the understanding most of his defensive value is driven by an incredible ability to read the ball off the bat and his first step as a result. Is this something you expect to degrade significantly early in a player's post-prime years? Most of JBJ's value at the plate is tied to "old player" skills as well -- power and an advanced approach with a solid understanding of the strike zone.
Your larger overall point stands, but even if he loses a step or two, I would expect him to be at least a solid average or above player in centerfield well into his thirties.
JBJ is under club control through his age-30 season. He's not overly dependent on his speed, but he won't be as quick in his age-31 season (or beyond) as he is now. That will cause a significant decline in his D, even if he's still above average. And while I agree that he has "old player" skills at the dish, he's not a standout there even in his prime; even a modest decline could make him a liability if he's no longer a GG-caliber defender.
None of which is to disparage JBJ's skills -- he's a valuable player. I'm just saying that the CBT rules strongly discourage the Sox from giving him something like a 5/50 deal, which I believe would be mutually beneficial in a world where that didn't drastically increase his luxury tax hit in 2017.
Under this ownership the Sox have never gone to an arbitration hearing with any player. Papi was basically entering the door to his a few years ago and they settled before it started, that's as close as they got. This is a very good record to have.
Isn't the bolded a problem, not a point in his favor?
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/three-young-old-fogies/
It would seem that way if you didn't read the parameters for the players they were looking at.
"Silver’s group consisted of players who, in their age 25 seasons, displayed a walk rate in the top 25 percent among qualifiers, a speed score in the lowest 25 percent, isolated power in the top half, and a batting average in the lowest half."
And if you look at the players that fall into that group, (Prince Fielder, Brian McCann, and Ike Davis) none of them come even close to the athleticism JBJ has.
Maybe Bradley can improve his speed and agility as he ages ... all he has to do is copy Brady's eating and training regimen. Tom always seems eager to help out fellow Boston athletes.
100%. I don't think the cliff for him will be incredibly precipitous. I just figured no matter your athleticism, if you are relying on "old player skills" to succeed at a younger age, you won't be able to improve them to compensate for your reduced athleticism regardless of where you are starting from.
I am totally open to the idea that this is less an issue and more of a plus in the post-Moneyball era, where I imagine most prospects have old player skills pushed during their development.
Edit: Maybe I missed a distinction somewhere along the line between having them and relying on them. I was just so used to hearing them in a good skill set, but bad for longevity kid of way.
Last edited:
I understand what you're saying and tend to agree, but I think it's an important distinction that it's the possession old player skills and the lack of others. Yes, Bradley gets a lot of his value from old player skills, but he's proficient in a lot of other areas too. His defensive instincts are plus-plus, arm is plus-plus, base-running instincts are above-average to plus, speed is average to above average. Pending health, there's no way he declines enough through his age-32 season for 5/$50M to be anything other than a bargain.
You may be right about the last part, but I think your premise on the defensive decline thing is fundamentally flawed. Just because raw speed isn't as big a factor in his defensive prowess as it is for some young CFs, that doesn't mean that declining speed won't hurt him. Quick reactions and a preternatural sense for routes means that he gets to a lot of balls other guys with his speed wouldn't get to--but he still gets to fewer balls than a guy with better speed, but all his other strengths, would get to. As his speed decreases, that guy will become 26-year-old Jackie Bradley. So he'll get to fewer balls than 26-year-old Jackie Bradley--unless you think those other strengths are actually going to get even better, which is possible but seems unlikely to me.
Regarding Pomeranz
Ian Browne @IanMBrowne
The @redsox offered Drew Pomeranz an arbitration figure of $3.6 million. Pomeranz countered at $5.7 million
.
Bumping this thread with news of Kevin Kiermeier's extension: 6 years, $53.5M (see https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/03/rays-kevin-kiermaier-nearing-extension.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+MlbTradeRumors+(MLB+Trade+Rumors) )
KK and JBJ are almost exactly the same age. They're defense-first CFs with slightly different skill sets but appear comparable in overall value. Would KK's deal be a fair offer for JBJ? Should the Sox be considering this type of deal for JBJ?
I understand the current lux tax implications of any significant extension. But big picture, I get worried that not locking up our younger guys early will result in one or more ultimately leaving because "we can't pay to keep them all."
KK and JBJ are almost exactly the same age. They're defense-first CFs with slightly different skill sets but appear comparable in overall value. Would KK's deal be a fair offer for JBJ? Should the Sox be considering this type of deal for JBJ?
I understand the current lux tax implications of any significant extension. But big picture, I get worried that not locking up our younger guys early will result in one or more ultimately leaving because "we can't pay to keep them all."
In terms of an extension, they aren't bad comps. Bradley is a better hitter, though, even if their overall value according to WAR is similar. And offense still does better on the open market, so I don't think they're likely to be able to get JBJ to agree to a 6 year 53.5 million dollar contract.
That said, if they could, they're looking at an increase of about 5.32 million this year, which does put them over $195 and probably kills any chance they'd do it now, as it would force them to move another contract out and would still leave them with no room to maneuver during the season without blowing up their chance to reset their LT hit.
If Panda was having a great spring and they could dump even half of his contract early in the year, maybe we'd see this happen. Of course, the cost of replacing Pablo on the roster would also have to be factored in, so again, I'm skeptical there's any real potential for this.
That said, if they could, they're looking at an increase of about 5.32 million this year, which does put them over $195 and probably kills any chance they'd do it now, as it would force them to move another contract out and would still leave them with no room to maneuver during the season without blowing up their chance to reset their LT hit.
If Panda was having a great spring and they could dump even half of his contract early in the year, maybe we'd see this happen. Of course, the cost of replacing Pablo on the roster would also have to be factored in, so again, I'm skeptical there's any real potential for this.
Would he do this as a Boras client? Moreover, given Betts & Benitendi, would it be more prudent to sell Bradley? I don't think so, but, if someone was wiling to overpay...
Beyond the outside perspective that has seemingly been pushing hard on their own "getting under the cap is a huge priority atm" narrative all winter, what about this ownership's *actual* spending model track record would make you believe that a LT hit there would have any type of limiting impact if they wanted to lock Bradley up at a below market contract?
Passing on Bradley at an under $10m AAV in the name of hypothetical savings down the line? For 15 years now the Sox have never been that stingy when it comes to writing out those LT checks. Whether or not we are paying a 20%, 30%, or 50% tax rate in whatever season going forward isn't trumping the overall value and need to supplement the roster with desirable contracts like that when the opportunity arises.
Fangraphs has an interesting article about KK in which they basically argue that because his skillset is so undervalued in arbitration, it may have pushed him to sign an extension in which he's giving away a lot of future earnings in favor of a certain payday now.
They also bring up the fact that he was a 31st round pick with a minimal bonus, which may also have contributed to his willingness to take less money now.
How does this relate to JBJ? Well, he was a supplemental first round pick and got a bonus of over 1 million, so he may not have felt the same urgency to cash in. He was also set to make about 700,000 more this year than KK, so his future arb salaries should be expected to be higher too. My point is, if KK's willingness to sign a fairly team-friendly deal was influenced at least in part due to lower career earnings plus a lower expected salary in arbitration, JBJ might not have the same urgency, especially with Boras as an agent.
Then there's the fact that he's really only been an asset at the plate at the MLB level for 1 1/3 seasons---which may also be affecting what kind of extension he could be looking at. All in all, luxury tax implications aside, I would be surprised if he was interested in signing an extension right now that was anywhere near the KK figure.
There are a number of factors that weren't there in the past. The CBA makes getting under the cap more important than it used to be. If for no other reason than to reset the penalties. The impact of the timing of that reset is enhanced by the 2018-2019 winter free agent class, which has the potential to be the best we've seen in a long long time. Then there's the fact that it's likely Bradley is a lesser concern than Betts and Bogaerts when it comes to inking extensions.
And then we have the fact that I was operating under the assumption that a below 10 million AAV isn't possible anyway, which was the paragraph you cut out of my post.
I took the starting point of what I did quote, which again was "That said, if they could..." to directly imply the opposite.
I'm also aware of those new LT factors. All of which start at the +20m over mark, and none to my knowledge that can be avoided even in the event we were to do a reset. A reset that in itself would only serve to essentially buy us a two year reduced tax rate window (30% less in 2018, 20% in 2019). Of course still leaving the fairly similar to the old rates we've already been paying, just bumped up a tad, as the real enemy and direct threat your claimed need is being directed at.
But just so I do have the details in what you are claiming there perfectly clear, are you projecting for the Sox to make these types of sacrifices (like having to budget out the ability to sign an extension for Bradley that was under $10m/per) in the short term with a planned aim to dramatically increase payroll levels and start splurge spending in 2018/2019? It would seem to me that this needs to be case, otherwise it boils down to doing a reset in the name of some pretty small scale savings. Plus which of those prize FA in next year's class do you actually see falling in JH's wheelhouse, especially given the current makeup of the roster?
I was pointing out that even in the best case scenario where that option was on the table, they're still going over this year and there are additional factors that make this even more problematic. I still think there is virtually no chance Bradley signs a similar contract right now.
And my point about the new CBA is that being over the threshold hurts much more than the old system. You seem to be missing some of the more pertinent details. First, it's not only for teams $20M over the mark. That's where the surtax kicks in. Which is a second tax on top of the one they are already paying.
Second, in addition to the stiffer penalty, which is not insubstantial, (you may be willing to piss away Henry's money, but there's no reason he should be so cavalier about it) teams over the threshold take a massive hit to their ability to draft and sign international free agents.
Those who sign a qualifying free agent give up their 2nd and 5th highest picks and they lose $1M in international spending cap money. And if they sign a second qualifying free agent they also give up their 3rd and 6th highest picks, and another $1M in international cap money.
If they are under the threshold (being a team not in the 15 smallest markets), signing one means giving up their 2nd highest pick and 500K in international cap money. Signing two would mean losing their 2nd and 3rd highest picks and $1M total of international cap money. Keep in mind that international spending is hard capped now. So the value of those dollars is no longer relative to a team's budget. It's almost fully static. Keeping that extra pick or two in their top 6 and an extra 500K-1M in IFA money is a huge deal.
So it's not just "some small savings."
For a team that just emptied their entire farm system, that could be devastating to the long term outlook of the franchise. If they don't get under the cap their choices are cripple their player development department, or stay out of the free agent market.
It's vital that they get under and stay under for most years. Going over once in a great while may make sense, but gone are the days where a team can live over the threshold and hope to remain competitive long term.
Edit: Here's a breakdown of the picks and IFA money stuff for those interested: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/210035584/mlb-cba-affects-draft-international-prospects/
And my point about the new CBA is that being over the threshold hurts much more than the old system. You seem to be missing some of the more pertinent details. First, it's not only for teams $20M over the mark. That's where the surtax kicks in. Which is a second tax on top of the one they are already paying.
Second, in addition to the stiffer penalty, which is not insubstantial, (you may be willing to piss away Henry's money, but there's no reason he should be so cavalier about it) teams over the threshold take a massive hit to their ability to draft and sign international free agents.
Those who sign a qualifying free agent give up their 2nd and 5th highest picks and they lose $1M in international spending cap money. And if they sign a second qualifying free agent they also give up their 3rd and 6th highest picks, and another $1M in international cap money.
If they are under the threshold (being a team not in the 15 smallest markets), signing one means giving up their 2nd highest pick and 500K in international cap money. Signing two would mean losing their 2nd and 3rd highest picks and $1M total of international cap money. Keep in mind that international spending is hard capped now. So the value of those dollars is no longer relative to a team's budget. It's almost fully static. Keeping that extra pick or two in their top 6 and an extra 500K-1M in IFA money is a huge deal.
So it's not just "some small savings."
For a team that just emptied their entire farm system, that could be devastating to the long term outlook of the franchise. If they don't get under the cap their choices are cripple their player development department, or stay out of the free agent market.
It's vital that they get under and stay under for most years. Going over once in a great while may make sense, but gone are the days where a team can live over the threshold and hope to remain competitive long term.
Edit: Here's a breakdown of the picks and IFA money stuff for those interested: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/210035584/mlb-cba-affects-draft-international-prospects/
I was.
Thanks for posting that link. It did a much better job of clarifying on it then the sources I had initially dug up and had been using while trying to evaluate the pros and cons behind any whether or not to spend over the cap decision.