Red Sox Payroll and Luxury Tax 2018

[Harry Hooper]

The reporting on this has been all over the map, witness Bob Nightengale's Nov. 13th report which had the Sox with the 4th-highest payroll in 2017 for luxury tax calculations.

The AP report about MLB issuing luxury tax bills today was somewhat lacking in detail, though it did state the following:

The Dodgers owe $36.2 million, according to final figures compiled by the commissioner’s office and obtained by The Associated Press. That raises their five-year tax total to nearly $150 million.

New York was second at $15.7 million, increasing its total since the tax began to $341 million. San Francisco was next at $4.1 million, followed by Detroit at almost $3.7 million and Washington – which is paying tax for the first time – at just under $1.45 million.

MLB has not posted a press release yet on their websites, so after further digging around, I did locate this NJ.com item which notes:

A record five* clubs are paying this year, including the Washington Nationals for the first time, although their penalty is just $1.4 million.

2017

1. Dodgers: $36,208,572

2. New York Yankees: $15,719,318

3. San Francisco Giants: $4,133,193

4. Detroit Tigers: $3,661,484

5. Washington Nationals: $1,448,190

So it appears the Sox quest to get under the luxury tax threshold in 2017 and reset was successful. Nightengale also had the Cubs listed as exceeding the threshold for 2017, but Theo apparently kept them under as well.

* Curiously, NJ.com's own article then goes on to list six clubs paying luxury tax penalties in 2016.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

So it appears the Sox quest to get under the luxury tax threshold in 2017 and reset was successful.

If you think about it, it’s actually pretty amazing they were able to do that, win the division, trade away most of their top prospects from 2015-16, and still pay the sunkiest of sunk costs for Pablo Sandoval.

 

[Harry Hooper]

If you think about it, it’s actually pretty amazing they were able to do that, win the division, trade away most of their top prospects from 2015-16, and still pay the sunkiest of sunk costs for Pablo Sandoval.

Without the Castillo/Craig sidestep for payroll calculations, would Encarnacion have been here and not Cleveland in 2017?

 

[Traut]

I'm ecstatic John Henry is keeping more of his money. But I'd rather an actual bat or two in the lineup.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Without the Castillo/Craig sidestep for payroll calculations, would Encarnacion have been here and not Cleveland in 2017?

I don’t think there’s any doubt EE would be a Red Sox right now, if Cherington had signed only one of Ramirez or Sandoval after 2014.

And in so far as that ill-fated combo move was necessitated after busting on twin gambles for injury (Craig) and raw potential (Castillo), you may be right.

But whatever. For whatever reason, I’ve found it much less interesting to debate FO moves since Theo left town.

C’est la vie.

 

[Kun Aguero]

I'm ecstatic John Henry is keeping more of his money. But I'd rather an actual bat or two in the lineup.

So doesn't he. That's why it was necessary to reset the tax. The Sox simply cannot enter the 50% tax phase. Otherwise, you could end up paying JD Martinez $42 million a year instead of $28 million. That's what paying a 50% tax bill does to a salary. And I don't think John Henry has been cheap since he took over. He spends. But the Sox don't have unlimited resources like the Yankees. There IS a limit. And the Panda contract shows exactly why you need to be careful, or would you rather he was paying tax on THAT contract too? The money he saved in taxes is now paying Moreland. MUCH better use of resources rather than forking it over in a tax bill, isn't it?

 

[In my lifetime]

So doesn't he. That's why it was necessary to reset the tax. The Sox simply cannot enter the 50% tax phase. Otherwise, you could end up paying JD Martinez $42 million a year instead of $28 million. That's what paying a 50% tax bill does to a salary. And I don't think John Henry has been cheap since he took over. He spends. But the Sox don't have unlimited resources like the Yankees. There IS a limit. And the Panda contract shows exactly why you need to be careful, or would you rather he was paying tax on THAT contract too? The money he saved in taxes is now paying Moreland. MUCH better use of resources rather than forking it over in a tax bill, isn't it?

I know it is a popular sentiment that the Yankees have unlimited resources, however, as evidenced by their determination to get under the luxury tax number even the Yankees have a limit, albeit it $50MM or so more than the RS.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Without the Castillo/Craig sidestep for payroll calculations, would Encarnacion have been here and not Cleveland in 2017?

I don’t think those two guys had much impact on that decision, since they didn’t factor into the tax. Henry isn’t cheap and hasn’t been since he bought the team. He’s also not stupid. But getting into serious luxury tax levels costs him a lot more than paying Castillo and Craig to ride a bus in AAA and now has other ramifications on top of it.

 

[Harry Hooper]

What I meant was if Castillo/Craig had already made getting under the threshold in 2017 impossible, then EE would have been signed last offseason.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Ah. Sorry, I misinterpreted what you meant. Interesting question. That still shakes out at $20M a year plus the luxury tax and limits future additions. I don’t think* it would have made a difference as I think, like the Yankees, they would have made an effort at some point to reset it, but maybe it wouldn’t have necessarily occurred last season.

 

[Hawk68]

I'm ecstatic John Henry is keeping more of his money. But I'd rather an actual bat or two in the lineup.

In January, we all will be keeping more of our money. It is a good thing, a very good thing. But the key to a successful team is to manage risk.

Crawford, Craig and Castillo had large potential upside, but all failed to be worth their cost. Panda and Hanley are the worst signings imaginable with large potential downsides fully realized, and they all continue to diminish the team we see on the field.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The reporting on this has been all over the map, witness Bob Nightengale's Nov. 13th report which had the Sox with the 4th-highest payroll in 2017 for luxury tax calculations.

The AP report about MLB issuing luxury tax bills today was somewhat lacking in detail, though it did state the following:

MLB has not posted a press release yet on their websites, so after further digging around, I did locate this NJ.com item which notes:

So it appears the Sox quest to get under the luxury tax threshold in 2017 and reset was successful. Nightengale also had the Cubs listed as exceeding the threshold for 2017, but Theo apparently kept them under as well.

* Curiously, NJ.com's own article then goes on to list six clubs paying luxury tax penalties in 2016.

Just to conform, Globe cited MLB source in mid-November that Sox had avoided luxury tax. https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2017/11/14/the-red-sox-stayed-under-luxury-tax-threshold-but-was-worth/EpHLesxgSlStRJtR0rs57K/story.html

The AP report is weird (okay, wrong) since it lists DET at $190.8MM and that would be under luxury tax. DET's real payroll for LT purposes was $207,204,947.

 

[lexrageorge]

Still waiting for the "John Henry is the worst owner in team history" type posts that seem to accompany these threads.

Getting under the threshold was a big deal for this team, not just for Henry's wallet.

 

[Kun Aguero]

I know it is a popular sentiment that the Yankees have unlimited resources, however, as evidenced by their determination to get under the luxury tax number even the Yankees have a limit, albeit it $50MM or so more than the RS.

The Yankees want to reset the luxury tax because of the number of impact players that more than likely will enter free agency next year, giving them the opportunity to spend more freely. It's NOT because they have reached their limit. And while I admit "unlimited" is not accurate, and a poor word choice on my part, the gap is MUCH higher than $50 million. This chart has them at $88 million more, and this is only an estimate. Now add what roughly $35 million more in tax savings? That's $123 million more to spend. That's four $30 million a year players difference. That's a HUGE advantage.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

(The link says 2010 revenue, but the site is correct and says 2016 revenues.)

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Still waiting for the "John Henry is the worst owner in team history" type posts that seem to accompany these threads.

Getting under the threshold was a big deal for this team, not just for Henry's wallet.

He gets the same stick from Liverpool fans in England - regardless of how much money he spends on players or the stadium. Of course, in this case there's an immediate Anti-American Owners knee jerk reaction - partially the fault of the previous parsimonious American owners (Hicks and Gillette) who most definitely were out to gouge the team for money.

As for Henry's stewardship of the Red Sox - anyone criticizing him for being cheap is simply not paying attention.

 

[MikeM]

Getting under the threshold was a big deal for this team, not just for Henry's wallet.

Big deal how specifically in the here and now?

If we don't end up pushing 2nd tier spending, sign or lose any QO free agents, and simply end up going back over the LT a year latter anyway, the beyond-the-hypothetical logic of valuing a reset over signing EE last winter gets a lot more debatable at this point imo.

In fact once you start adding in accompanying aspects like current windows, settling on Mitch Moreland (twice), and making the potential mistake of moving Hanley to full time DH...you might even be able to argue that it ultimately did more harm then good in the grander scheme of things. Well, at least if the primary concern wasn't min/max'ing the team's cash savings that is.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Big deal how specifically in the here and now?

If we don't end up pushing 2nd tier spending, sign or lose any QO free agents, and simply end up going back over the LT a year latter anyway, the beyond-the-hypothetical logic of valuing a reset over signing EE last winter gets a lot more debatable at this point imo.

In fact once you start adding in accompanying aspects like current windows, settling on Mitch Moreland (twice), and making the potential mistake of moving Hanley to full time DH...you might even be able to argue that it ultimately did more harm then good in the grander scheme of things. Well, at least if the primary concern wasn't min/max'ing the team's cash savings that is.

It’s a big deal in that extending Mookie at $25MM AAV isn’t actually extending Mookie at $40MM.

That $15MM AAV payroll headroom is probably enough pay a catcher in a couple years, or to pay Britton as a FA.

The reality is, Devers has already arrived, a year ahead of schedule, and he was the last of the really good prospects. So whatever savings the Sox can create, the better their chances after the next two years have passed.

 

[MikeM]

It’s a big deal in that extending Mookie at $25MM AAV isn’t actually extending Mookie at $40MM.

That $15MM AAV payroll headroom is probably enough pay a catcher in a couple years, or to pay Britton as a FA.

The reality is, Devers has already arrived, a year ahead of schedule, and he was the last of the really good prospects. So whatever savings the Sox can create, the better their chances after the next two years have passed.

For starters, the exact math going in to what we actually end up paying on Mookie's $25m/per, assuming that hypothetical extension even happens, isn't anywhere near as clear cut as that. You also have to factor in that you'll still end up paying some form of LT on it regardless after we go over again this year. Getting under last year isn't really avoiding that.

The potential appeal of getting under the the LT doesn't start and end with a principle win either. Sure, the team saved some money last year and likely positioned themselves into eating some lower tax rates over the next 2 winters. But did/does it ultimately end up being worth it instead of making the choice to stay over and allowing us to sign EE last winter? If you gave me the chance for a do-over today, I'd personally choose the hindsight path where we signed EE and played it out from there.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Yes. It is and was worth it. EE wasn’t winning us a ring, they lost because the pitching crapped out. And adding another $35-40M for this year, plus the draft restrictions was not worth adding EE. Neither before the season, nor after, nor heading into next season, when it would climb to harsher penalties and then even worse when the kids are up for extensions.

BC fucked up and they have to take their medicine in the meantime. After next year, Hanley and Pablo drop off, as well as Kimbrel (though they’ll likely resign him). Then Porcello is gone.

I honestly don’t understand the hard on for pushing all the chips into the middle of the table that’s arisen here lately. It’s not 2001 anymore. It doesn’t need to be an arms race at all costs and there’s no ‘window’ anytime soon. It’s not like they don’t think ahead at all. If signing EE meant that resigning Sale costs them $60m as opposed to $50m, or they don’t lose a bunch of draft capital of it gives them more space/money going forward for the kids, then imho that’s a smart move.

 

[MikeM]

Yes. It is and was worth it. EE wasn’t winning us a ring, they lost because the pitching crapped out. And adding another $35-40M for this year, plus the draft restrictions was not worth adding EE. Neither before the season, nor after, nor heading into next season, when it would climb to harsher penalties and then even worse when the kids are up for extensions.

It's not solely about hoping signing EE ultimately won us a ring for me (even if I do personally believe that it might have led to us having a better overall shot by also helping to correct a few other organizational mistakes that got made). It's about changing the set of surrounding variables then, now, and going forward as well.

How did you calculate that extra $35-40m figure for this year btw, and what exact draft restrictions resulting from having EE already on our roster atm are you referring to?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

BC fucked up and they have to take their medicine in the meantime. After next year, Hanley and Pablo drop off, as well as Kimbrel (though they’ll likely resign him). Then Porcello is gone.

Pablo is on the books through 2019 plus a $5M buyout in 2020.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

It's not solely about hoping signing EE ultimately won us a ring for me (even if I do personally believe that it might have led to us having a better overall shot by also helping to correct a few other organizational mistakes that got made). It's about changing the set of surrounding variables then, now, and going forward as well.

What “organizational mistakes” would signing EE have corrected? Other than, you know, not signing EE off the scrap heap after he got kicked off the Blue Jays roster back in 2010?

That would have involved giving a non-star hitter the roster space and plate appearances needed to develop into a stud masher, increasing the risk of underperformance by taking on a lower level of financial commitment.

But that’s not what you’re proposing the Sox should have done. In fact, it’s precisely the opposite course of action you’re suggesting.

The Sox already did it your way by bringing Hanley and Panda aboard. The Sox needed more offense after 2014, and so picked them up. Hanley was the best bat available in FA, a RHH masher who would send moonshots over the monster. Panda was a two-way World Series MVP able to carry the team in the postseason.

That is the organizational decision-making process you’re advocating.

 

[MikeM]

What “organizational mistakes” would signing EE have corrected?

You are trying to dig too deep there, as what was done was done at the point we could have signed EE and I was simply referencing what we could have done different last off season:

1. Don't make the overly optimistic mistake of simply digging our desperation hole even deeper. Replace David Ortiz's hole in the middle of our lineup, surrounded by still developing kids, with a higher caliber bat then Mitch Moreland.

2. Leave what worked in 2016 with Hanley Ramirez alone, and don't let him get too comfortable/content at full time DH (granted I'm as guilty as anybody at the time in thinking this might have been a good idea btw). Even if that meant he had to start the year on the DL, and you had to go with the initially proposed plan of having a rotating DH while EE helped sub in some at 1B.

3. With no surrounding LT crunch concern that essentially went down to the last dollar, be a little more aggressive with the roster and maybe give yourself the opportunity to look at different fits or trade solutions. Certainly don't let 2/3 of season go by before you make that Nunez trade that back filled the gigantic hole you already knew was going to exist post-Pablo bust and after we traded away the only other guy with any notable starting 3B experience. All of which combined with an EE lineup acquisition might of even left us feeling less dire about the need for potential offense that we could then actually DL guys when they get hurt.

Now maybe all that mattered or maybe it didn't in terms of how 2017 played out, but here is what I do know right now. Stripping away the hyberpole aspect anytime somebody brings up what a huge and always vague win getting under the LT is, we saved X amount of money last year and are currently up a pick (Houke I believe) which I would happily ship out yesterday in the event it put EE on this current roster instead of Mitch Moreland. The near future tax rate did indeed get reset, but with no immediate roster win coming out of it as far as I can tell other then people projecting a JDM signing. Which even with a reduced tax rate could lead to an higher overall payroll in 2018 then what we might have been able to field even without the reset. Not to mention the loss of picks still attached to it, the addition of another potential albatross contract extending far beyond our easy to project window, and which is all getting LT'd next winter (with added tiers now instead of the previous flat rate) since we are already right back in the penalty zone before we even decided to sign Moreland.

Different strokes for different folks I guess but again, to me this isn't projecting out to be a winning decision imo (at least while speculating that he could have been signed, of course).

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

You are trying to dig too deep there, as what was done was done at the point we could have signed EE and I was simply referencing what we could have done different last off season:

etc.

Only in Boston could this post possibly have been written about a 93-69 club that came within a ninth-inning rally's breadth of taking the eventual WS winner to an elimination game.

 

[edoug]

Only in Boston could this post possibly have been written about a 93-69 club that came within a ninth-inning rally's breadth of taking the eventual WS winner to an elimination game.

Does this surprise you in any way?

 

[MikeM]

Only in Boston could this post possibly have been written about a 93-69 club that came within a ninth-inning rally's breadth of taking the eventual WS winner to an elimination game.

Wasn't really complaining at the result as a whole. Just pointing out that things could have been different and potentially better. Then and which would have extended into now.

If you have a counter argument that includes actual specifics on why I should otherwise feel that getting under the LT last year played out to be so dang critical in comparison I'd love to hear it though. Like i said, the lesser tax rates we'll be paying out on our cap surplus in the short term and by itself isn't convincing me we made the right priority call at that point in time. Next winter and especially the winter following that were the much bigger come in under the LT sells imo. With that not happening last year's reset just doesn't look to mean as much atm.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Wasn't really complaining at the result as a whole. Just pointing out that things could have been different and potentially better. Then and which would have extended into now.

If you have a counter argument that includes actual specifics on why I should otherwise feel that getting under the LT last year played out to be so dang critical in comparison I'd love to hear it though.

Seriously? You’ve been provided with specifics already, and have decided they’re not worth considering, if you were the one making the decisions.

But I’ll try anyway.

The 2016 Sox scored the most runs in MLB, and they were +101 over the nearest AL competitor....who had just taken the World Series champions to extra innings in Game 7.

That team was set to take the field in 2017 with every single positional regular who contributed to that level of success returning, except one. Even the bench was mostly returning intact. What they appeared to need after the 2016 postseason was pitching and bullpen help.

The ONLY hitter of significance not coming back was Ortiz. Losing their cornerstone bat was going to hurt...everyone knew that. But the rest of the team looked locked in.

The 2017 Sox scored 93 fewer runs during a season that the MLB average rose by 28. That swing of 121 runs is far beyond the -41 run difference in R+RBI by the Sox DH in 2016 (214) vs 2017 (175). The Red Sox could have signed Encarnacion to replace David Ortiz... but the much bigger issue is that the rest of the lineup also sucked!

R+RBI, 2017 - 2016
—————————
Batting #1: 206 - 227 = -21
Batting #2: 176 - 187 = -11
Batting #3: 213 - 238 = -25
Batting #4: 176 - 231 = -55
Batting #5: 146 - 191 = -45
Batting #6: 149 - 179 = -30
Batting #7: 144 - 164 = -20
Batting #8: 165 - 136 = +29
Batting #9: 145 - 161 = -16

That’s right — the only lineup spot with a positive differential is the #8. During a season when runs scored was up throughout MLB. And almost all of that improvement appears to have been from a hot streak by Vazquez and a few key at-bats by Moreland.

Overall, we’re not looking at an issue solvable by bringing in one big bat. It’s not an issue that’s foreseeable in the winter ahead of time. The breadth of the problem appears far greater.

It speaks to a more generalized systemic problem: perhaps of hitting approach, perhaps scouting, perhaps injury management.

Signing Edwin Encarnacion would likely have helped the 2016 Red Sox score more runs, but it’s not like he would have solved all the offense’s problems himself. And while the Sox might have won a few more games, they were division champs anyway.

 

[MikeM]

Again, we obviously have different overall outlooks on our 2017 season. But none of that directly answers my question on why getting under the LT was so important that we couldn't have signed EE last winter. Or why we wouldn't/couldn't be better off right now with him already on the roster.

Paying a higher % tax rate on surpluses isn't what's going to to end up killing us in regards to the new CBA. One which isn't offering the same general "reset the flat rate and you are all good for a couple seasons" appeal surrounding it that it might of had before. The real constant devil is in the noteworthy player movement details, and ideally possessing the strategic ability to get under in off-seasons where a lot of that is expected while still dodging 2nd tier hits in the years you do go over.

If we aren't doing any of that over the next couple of years then I'm simply asking for help in seeing where the real win in this current reset is actually coming from beyond the team pocketing some extra money. Especially in comparison to a decision that saw us push more chips in last offseason on a 3 year EE deal, and which potentially avoided putting ourselves into a position where some feel it's absolutely necessary right now to sign JDM to a higher AAV contract with a ton more long term risk attached to it.

 

[Plympton91]

The ONLY hitter of significance not coming back was Ortiz. Losing their cornerstone bat was going to hurt...everyone knew that. But the rest of the team looked locked in.

The 2017 Sox scored 93 fewer runs during a season that the MLB average rose by 28. That swing of 121 runs is far beyond the -41 run difference in R+RBI by the Sox DH in 2016 (214) vs 2017 (175). The Red Sox could have signed Encarnacion to replace David Ortiz... but the much bigger issue is that the rest of the lineup also sucked!
.

The loss of a lineup anchor and the underperformance of the rest of the lineup are self evidently completely unrelated in your opinion?

Also, why wouldn’t you subtract HR from your R+RBI stat?

 

[Marbleheader]

Latest estimates put the payroll at about $232M (numbers vary widely on the internet) after the JD Martinez signing. Is there a reliable source for payroll information or is everyone just guessing?

 

[In my lifetime]

Cot's Contracts is an excellent source of payroll information. Use the tax calculation tab.

Currently for tax calculation purposes they have:
RS at 230,000
Yankees at 176,000

I would expect Holt to be jettisoned for a lottery type of prospect to save 2,000,000.

It does show just how painful a bad long term free agent contract can be to a team's finances. I am completely on board re: the JDM signing, but like most things in life it is far from a sure thing.

 

[chawson]

According to this account, the acquisition of Pearce may have put us over the secondary threshold.


https://goo.gl/QKKrwW

Anyone have a different tally? This stuff is hard to keep track of. There are ways the Sox can clear payroll to get under again, but it would be odd if they went over this threshold, and odder if they did by a hair.

 

[JimD]

Per Rosenthal:

 

[DeadlySplitter]

they don't make the move without being under 237

 

[grimshaw]

I kind of doubt Steve Pearce would be the guy they decided worthwhile to mortgage part of their future on.

 

[timlinin8th]

I kind of doubt Steve Pearce would be the guy they decided worthwhile to mortgage part of their future on.

This, plus I don’t think Dombrowski is done. That tweet mentions that the Sox are expected to try and acquire another reliever, but I expect a few guys on the club now will be moved to cut salary to make room (nobody important, but Swihart’s time is drawing to a close, maybe one or two other guys as well).

 

[RedOctober3829]

This, plus I don’t think Dombrowski is done. That tweet mentions that the Sox are expected to try and acquire another reliever, but I expect a few guys on the club now will be moved to cut salary to make room (nobody important, but Swihart’s time is drawing to a close, maybe one or two other guys as well).

Do you think a trade for a reliever will involve salary going out the door as part of a trade?

 

[shaggydog2000]

$1.65 Mil came along with Pearce. So that reduces what they owe him for the rest of the year to about $1.5 mil based on his $6.25 mil yearly salary. And somebody comes off the roster as well. So I doubt it ate up all of their remaining cap room.

 

[pinkunicornsox]

I wonder if they will try to find a taker for Nunez. He seems kind of redundant with the reemergence of Holt, Swihart as a break glass in emergency type and Lin in Pawtucket.

 

[timlinin8th]

Do you think a trade for a reliever will involve salary going out the door as part of a trade?

I think its more likely a guy like Swihart gets sent out for some useless minor league player to a non-contender willing to give him a final flyer in a separate trade, but who knows, stranger things have happened.

 

[RIrooter09]

$1.65 Mil came along with Pearce. So that reduces what they owe him for the rest of the year to about $1.5 mil based on his $6.25 mil yearly salary. And somebody comes off the roster as well. So I doubt it ate up all of their remaining cap room.

Nobody comes off the 40 man. We were only at 39 before acquiring Pearce.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Based on Cot's numbers, they only had about $1.6M in space left before the Pearce move. The dollar amount coming with Pearce and the resulting salary responsibility the Sox have seems too close to be a coincidence.

 

[Byrdbrain]

I wonder if they will try to find a taker for Nunez. He seems kind of redundant with the reemergence of Holt, Swihart as a break glass in emergency type and Lin in Pawtucket.

I have a very hard time believing they could find anyone who would want Nunez.

 

[RIrooter09]

Yeah I'm having trouble seeing how we unload payroll to add a reliever at this point.

 

[moondog80]

Based on Cot's numbers, they only had about $1.6M in space left before the Pearce move. The dollar amount coming with Pearce and the resulting salary responsibility the Sox have seems too close to be a coincidence.

So does this mean they have basically zero room left, and even a bullpen arm isn't happening unless we shed an equal amount of salary in the deal?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

So does this mean they have basically zero room left, and even a bullpen arm isn't happening unless we shed an equal amount of salary in the deal?

I'd say that's most likely.

There were discussions in one of the trade threads about the space under the tax threshold and whether Dombrowski truly intended to stay under based on what he's done since the end of last season. I think this trade and the financial aspects of it are proof positive that the intent is to avoid exceeding $237M in taxable salary. If they add anyone else of significant salary, they'll be looking to match the addition with equal subtraction from the payroll.

 

[chawson]

So does this mean they have basically zero room left, and even a bullpen arm isn't happening unless we shed an equal amount of salary in the deal?

A Swihart deal for a pre-arb bullpen arm like Ryan Buchter would be a money wash, but I have a hard time seeing Blake bring back a guy like that.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

So does this mean they have basically zero room left, and even a bullpen arm isn't happening unless we shed an equal amount of salary in the deal?

I think this is probably bingo.

The only possible piece the Sox could trade to clear relatively significant salary, without damaging the team’s potential success, is Pomeranz. And that’s only if no other pitcher gets hurt, along with Wright only needing a two-week rest.

Those aren’t good odds.

However, I would not be remotely surprised if the LHRP that the team “needs” in the playoffs is instead found from among Rodriguez, Pomeranz, or Beeks.

 

[mfried]

I find the attitude toward Nunez surprising. He still is the same hitter as we had in 2017, and has shown signs of recovering those skills.

 

[Ale Xander]

Other than trading their #2 or #3 starter (who happen to be our GM binkies), I really don't see anyone who can be moved to create substantial salary space.