If the season gets to September 1, the Red Sox luxury tax resets

Manuel Aristides

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2009
72
That's why I said 'almost never', there are definitely exceptions. Keep in mind that BOS put Manny on waivers in the middle of that deal and no one else claimed it, and the economics of the current game make huge deals even less likely to be wise investments. For every example like the ones you gave, there are probably five on the other side of the ledger. I think this post states it well:
So you swung in on a vine to correct my "in some circumstances" to "almost never". Got it. Sorry for not properly threading that semantic needle. This is why I rarely post.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,595
Portsmouth, NH
Because the Sox had run out of prospects for him to trade.
I mentioned this in one of the other threads, but please cite - with the exception of Moncada, possibly Shaw and what's looking more and more like a remote chance of Kopech - exactly which prospects Dombrowski should get shit over trading away. Who do they miss and what hole would they have filled?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
52,015
So you swung in on a vine to correct my "in some circumstances" to "almost never". Got it. Sorry for not properly threading that semantic needle. This is why I rarely post.
Well, you ended with “for all we know he's dying to throw half a billion dollars at someone and just needs the chance!” so that was more what I was responding to.
 

cannonball 1729

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 8, 2005
2,976
The Sticks
I mentioned this in one of the other threads, but please cite - with the exception of Moncada, possibly Shaw and what's looking more and more like a remote chance of Kopech - exactly which prospects Dombrowski should get shit over trading away. Who do they miss and what hole would they have filled?
Oh - I honestly think the trades were fine. But he never replaced the prospects he traded; his drafting and development were awful, and he basically let the system go fallow in his tenure. And if your greatest skill is getting good present value for prospects and you run out of prospects, well, it's probably time to go.
 

Adirondack jack

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2008
1,394
Keep in mind that BOS put Manny on waivers in the middle of that deal and no one else claimed it, and the economics of the current game make huge deals even less likely to be wise investments:
Yes not one club claimed him during that offseason. Does that automatically make it the right decision? Surely you're aware that the market isnt always right.

With almost 20 years hindsight a more ambitious poster could look more into whether the market made the right decision then and there
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,495
Twin Cities
I mentioned this in one of the other threads, but please cite - with the exception of Moncada, possibly Shaw and what's looking more and more like a remote chance of Kopech - exactly which prospects Dombrowski should get shit over trading away. Who do they miss and what hole would they have filled?
I don’t think that was Canonball’s point. DD is GOOD at converting prospects into current players. He consistently id’d veteran guys who could help us. But if he uses up his ammo...
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
52,015
Yes not one club claimed him during that offseason. Does that automatically make it the right decision? Surely you're aware that the market isnt always right.
Sure, the market is wrong a lot, they let NY get LeMahieu for 2/24 last winter. I'm just pointing out that three years into that eight year deal, anyone could have assumed the remaming 5/105 or so and no one chose to do so. Despite that, it's one of the best huge deals signed, because those deals backfire more often than not (oddly the ones for pitchers tend to work out a lot better than the ones for hitters, David Price excepted).
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
52,015
There have been 12 $200M+ deals for position players before this past offseason, 5 have too much remaining on them to judge (Trout, Harper, Machado, Arenado, Stanton). The other 7 are:

A-Rod 1 (great deal, especially since he opted out after 7 years)
A-Rod 2 (terrible, even though NY doesn't win in 2009 without him)
Miguel Cabrera (this one is still going through 2023, yikes)
Pujols (still going through 2021, again yikes)
Cano (through 2023, once again yikes)
Votto (10 year deal through 2023, so six seasons in the books. This one is not terrible, he has averaged about 4.5 bWAR so far although it would look a lot better for CIN if it has kicked in 4 years earlier when he was 26)
Prince Fielder (nine year deal, one very good year then four mediocre ones, then retirement, very ugly).

So I'd say one winner, one fine, and five somewhat franchise-crippling.

 

cannonball 1729

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 8, 2005
2,976
The Sticks
I don’t think that was Canonball’s point. DD is GOOD at converting prospects into current players. He consistently id’d veteran guys who could help us. But if he uses up his ammo...
That's exactly it. DD will forever be remembered as the guy who traded six prospects for Miguel Cabrera and four prospects for Chris Sale. Those are fantastic acquisitions regardless of whom he gave up.

Honestly, I hope Moncada hits 60 home runs next year - there's absolutely nothing wrong with both sides getting value out of a deal, and that 2018 flag flies forever
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
11,752
To Jon:

You call ARod1 a great deal (and I understand why) but you can level the exact same caveat on that deal as you did on the Manny Ramirez contract. The same year that nobody claimed Manny on waivers the Rangers were so eager to get out of the “great” ARod deal they were willing to trade him for Manny’s contract.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
52,015
To Jon:

You call ARod1 a great deal (and I understand why) but you can level the exact same caveat on that deal as you did on the Manny Ramirez contract. The same year that nobody claimed Manny on waivers the Rangers were so eager to get out of the “great” ARod deal they were willing to trade him for Manny’s contract.
We're way off topic but BOS was going to include a 20 year old Jon Lester in that deal.

 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
11,752
I’m well aware Lester was in the deal. I’m glad the trade fell through. But if your evidence that the Rangers didn’t hate the ARod contract in 2003-4 was that they were willing to ditch it to get back an A-ball pitcher with serious control issues then I think that touch goes to me.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
52,015
I’m kind of confused what we’re arguing about, I said that the Manny deal ended up as a rare good one for the signing team. TEX didn’t want to pay to put more talent around A-Rod, so they moved him.

Anyway, the economics of the game have changed quite a bit in the 16 years since then, and big deals make even less sense than they did then (with obvious occasional exceptions). NY paid a ton for Cole but will likely let at least two of Paxton and Tanaka and Happ go this winter and replace them with cheaper internal solutions. I guess my point is that it is harder to spend your way into contention now than it’s been for the past few decades, but again the next CBA could potentially change that some.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,595
Portsmouth, NH
Oh - I honestly think the trades were fine. But he never replaced the prospects he traded; his drafting and development were awful.
You realize how little the GM actually has to do with this part, right?

DD will forever be remembered as the guy who traded six prospects for Miguel Cabrera and four prospects for Chris Sale. Those are fantastic acquisitions regardless of whom he gave up.
Lol, remembered by who for that?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,595
Portsmouth, NH
The GM isn't like in the NBA, NFL or NHL; they don't have a ton to do with the draft, basically just overseeing it (part of which is necessary since the draft is during the actual season, unlike the other sports); the scouting department does almost all of it. Here, it's laid out with examples ( I put it in a spoiler, because of the size of the article) :

The general manager's role in the first-year player draft in baseball is much different than in other sports like the NFL, NBA or NHL. The actual role of the GM in the MLB draft is limited. It doesn’t matter if you were a former scouting director like Kevin Towers or Jack Zduriencik, a former director of player development director like Doug Melvin or if you come from an administrative background. It’s the scouting director who makes the call for the 30 teams, with the general manager, team president and owner maintaining veto power.

Successful MLB drafts are mostly the result of strong scouting directors who have special evaluative skills and, even more importantly, are surrounded by the hardest working, most underrated and underpaid employees in baseball: special assistants, cross-checkers, supervisors, area scouts and bird dogs.

The following is the breakdown of the general manager’s role in the draft as communicated to me directly from some of the best GMs in the game:

Cleveland Indians
Chris Antonetti -- Cleveland Indians: The scouting director makes the final call on the draft with input from the GM and assistant general manager. Antonetti does not personally scout any players. He tries to approach the draft the same way he approaches trades. He takes all of the information from his evaluators, challenges them by asking the right questions and lets them do their job. The Indians will take the best player available in the first round, after that, draft strategy factors into the scouting director's decisions. These draft strategies could include but are not limited to: positional needs, signability, makeup, physical attributes and the possibilities of a certain player not being available in the next round based on club intelligence.

Boston Red Sox
Theo Epstein -- Boston Red Sox: In some years, he will scout as few as five to 10 players. Other years, when they have multiple picks, he might see as many as 20. He has input on the first couple of rounds, but he doesn’t overrule the picks the scouts feel strongly about. Epstein will participate in the meeting and is part of the process and that is where his influence is heard. He has always viewed it as the scouting director's call, but the Red Sox usually somehow get consensus, and as GM he maintains veto power that he rarely uses. The Sox will take the best player available unless that player is simply not going to sign.

San Diego Padres
Jed Hoyer -- San Diego Padres: Both years that Hoyer has been GM, he has seen five to 10 players that they will consider for their top pick. He will ask critical questions about each player, trying to make sure the process is thorough, but he trusts assistant GM Jason McLeod and scouting director Jaron Madison completely. Since McLeod and Madison spend the entire year watching the players and learning the context of the draft, Hoyer doesn’t believe it leads to good decisions if he injects himself in the process too late. McLeod and Madison run the draft room and make the decisions for the Padres' draft. The Padres believe in taking the best player on the board and not drafting for need. However, it is Hoyer’s philosophy not to stockpile at a non-skill position (first base or corner outfield), rather staying up the middle or with starting pitching to get the most talented players.

Milwaukee Brewers
Doug Melvin -- Milwaukee Brewers: Melvin will only see the players that are brought to Miller Park for pre-draft workouts. If the Brewers were picking in the top 5, he would normally see the short list. The scouting director makes the final decision for the Brew Crew, but Melvin has input on one or two players he will say they are NOT taking due to character. The Brewers will select the best player at their turn, as well.

St. Louis Cardinals
John Mozeliak -- St. Louis Cardinals: Mozeliak tries to have the scouting director make all of the selections, although he will weigh in, but allows him to manage his department. Mozeliak does read reports and studies video but does not spend much time seeing potential draft picks in person. The Cardinals' philosophy is to take the best player available.

Arizona Diamondbacks
Kevin Towers -- Arizona Diamondbacks: Towers scouted roughly 10 prospects this year, only prospects that he would consider taking for their No. 3 and No. 7 picks in the first round. The picks will be determined by their scouting director, Ray Montgomery, and vice president of scouting and player development, Jerry Dipoto. Towers does gives his opinion on how he sees the players if asked. Montgomery and Dipoto are held accountable for the draft, so he doesn’t think they should be influenced by his opinion, unless they choose to be. The scouting director will make the decisions in all the rounds and will carry out Towers' philosophy of taking the players with the highest ceiling for potential, with probability of reaching those projections.

Atlanta Braves
Frank Wren -- Atlanta Braves: Wren intentionally won’t see any players, because he has always believed to have a valid opinion in the draft room you have to immerse yourself in it full-time. He won’t make any selections for the club, but he is involved in the draft and will give opinions based on the team's scouting reports. The Braves will take the best available players early, but will look at organizational depth as the draft moves along.


Seattle Mariners
Jack Zduriencik -- Seattle Mariners: Zduriencik has a different background than both Epstein and Antonetti, so he will tend to be more involved. Remember, in Milwaukee Zduriencik's track record included the drafting of Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun. He sees as many players as his scouting director feels he needs to see, and Zduriencik always attempts to go to games. Zduriencik strongly believes that you have to trust your scouting director to make the right call. His role is more of a sounding board/advisor and wants to share his experience of success and failure. He, like Antonetti and Epstein, allows his scouting director to make the final call. The Mariners will take the best player on the board with their first pick.

The major league first-year player draft is one of the most exciting times of the baseball calendar. It’s the time of year when the GM is reminded that one of his most important decisions was who he hired as scouting director.
 

cannonball 1729

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 8, 2005
2,976
The Sticks
So...when Theo Epstein came in and rebuilt the Sox farm into the $100 million dollar development machine, or when he left and did the same thing to the Cubs, the claim is that he didn't have much to do with it and doesn't deserve much credit? That....seems like quite an assertion.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,595
Portsmouth, NH
So...when Theo Epstein came in and rebuilt the Sox farm into the $100 million dollar development machine, or when he left and did the same thing to the Cubs, the claim is that he didn't have much to do with it and doesn't deserve much credit? That....seems like quite an assertion.
The “$100M player development machine” was about spending more on amateur talent and working the arbitration and draft system - as well as luxury tax penalties at that point - and about spending money on brains and new evaluation techniques, market inefficiency, etc.
He didn’t sit around watching tape, scouting picks and then go to the minors to help out with them being furthered along. He and LL hired people - who eventually got poached - and let them do their job. Cherington deserves far more accolades than Epstein does for the farm, but if you want to stick purely to the GM, the Sox were ranked 17th by BA when he left.

When he went to the Cubs, who were ranked 16th and in far better position financially, despite lower revenues they didn’t have a ton of bloat. With good position ‘He’ drafted Bryant, Schwarber and Baez, made a few good trades to acquire Rizzo and Russel and the stock in his system rose. He was able to spend money on a Torres to toss at the Yankees for a Chapman rental (as well as three others, for a month and a postseason) and then fell back to middle of the pack. His Cubs are currently ranked 23rd. (Sox are 25th, fwiw).

Theo deserves whatever credit comes to however much weight he had in hiring the people that handle those portions of the organization.

Also, that article only focuses on the draft and says nothing about development. They're not remotely the same thing.
You’re the one that mentioned draft, I simply responded to it. How much do you think a GM devotes on a daily basis to every guy in the system and their matriculation through it? Beyond outside the big league product, the underbelly of the organization isn’t under much control or credit - good or bad - beyond oversight. They might veto a draft pick because they want pitcher vs positional, etc; or say they need a guy promoted because the big league team has needs - be it playing him or trading him - but they aren’t the same as looking at Danny Ainge and saying “his drafts suck and the rookies never pan out”. And he’s not BB who’s down on the field teaching Malcolm how to jump that route. It’s just a completely different and unique aspect, albeit one that the GM gets credit or blame for.
 
Last edited:

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,595
Portsmouth, NH
As a follow up, what do you think a GM - and you can tailor this to Theo specifically or to generalities - has for responsibilities when it comes to draft or development?
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
7,710
The “$100M player development machine” was about spending more on amateur talent and working the arbitration and draft system - as well as luxury tax penalties at that point - and about spending money on brains and new evaluation techniques, market inefficiency, etc.
He didn’t sit around watching tape, scouting picks and then go to the minors to help out with them being furthered along. He and LL hired people - who eventually got poached - and let them do their job. Cherington deserves far more accolades than Epstein does for the farm, but if you wAnt to stick purely to the GM, the Sox we’re ranked 17th by BA when he left.

When he went to the Cubs, who were ranked 16th and in far better position financially, despite lower revenues they didn’t have a ton of bloat. With good position ‘He’ drafted Bryant, Schwarber and Baez, made a few good trades to acquire Rizzo and Russel and the stock in his system rose. He was able to spend money on a Torres to toss at the Yankees for a Chapman rental (as well as three others, for a month and a postseason) and then fell back to middle of the pack. His Cubs are currently ranked 23rd. (Sox are 25th, fwiw).

Theo deserves whatever credit comes to however much weight he had in hiring the people that handle those portions of the organization.



You’re the one that mentioned draft, I simply responded to it. How much do you think a GM devotes on a daily basis to every guy in the system and their matriculation through it? Beyond outside the big league product, the underbelly of the organization isn’t under much control or credit - good or bad - beyond oversight. They might veto a draft pick because they want pitcher vs positional, etc; or say they need a guy promoted because the big league team has needs - be it playing him or trading him - but they aren’t the same as looking at Danny Ainge and saying “his drafts suck and the rookies never pan out”. And he’s not BB who’s down on the field teaching Malcolm how to jump that route. It’s just a completely different and unique aspect, albeit one that the GM gets credit or blame for.
To back you up, there is little to no evidence that certain GMs, teams, or scouting departments draft any better than any other ones. At least not beyond sheer luck and starting with better draft situations. The sample sizes are just too small to support anything like that. The Sox did well in the Epstein era by giving themselves more chances, through methods that just weren't available any more by the time Dombrowski was GM. Free agent draft pick compensation, draft spending caps, and international signing limits all changed to severely limit the ability to "buy" young talent. Dombrowski left the cupboard bare because his teams were good and he had less opportunity to add young talent as a result of that success. That's the way it's going to be from now on, with the caveat that luck is always going to make some GMs look smarter than others.

There have been 12 $200M+ deals for position players before this past offseason, 5 have too much remaining on them to judge (Trout, Harper, Machado, Arenado, Stanton). The other 7 are:

A-Rod 1 (great deal, especially since he opted out after 7 years)
A-Rod 2 (terrible, even though NY doesn't win in 2009 without him)
Miguel Cabrera (this one is still going through 2023, yikes)
Pujols (still going through 2021, again yikes)
Cano (through 2023, once again yikes)
Votto (10 year deal through 2023, so six seasons in the books. This one is not terrible, he has averaged about 4.5 bWAR so far although it would look a lot better for CIN if it has kicked in 4 years earlier when he was 26)
Prince Fielder (nine year deal, one very good year then four mediocre ones, then retirement, very ugly).

So I'd say one winner, one fine, and five somewhat franchise-crippling.

And even the single good one included an opt-out that pretty much forced a bad one. If A-rod had gone to the original end of that first contract's 10 year period, the Yankees would have been debating resigning a guy who had put up two straight 4 war seasons, was going to be 35, and had been starting to miss games. Instead he opts out after putting up over 9 war in two of the last 3 seasons, about to turn 32, and had been healthy as a horse. There is no way he gets that second contract at the original end of his first. But for the actual length that first one ran, he was definitely worth it, so overall that one is debatable. It's at least got a caveat.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,595
Portsmouth, NH
To back you up, there is little to no evidence that certain GMs, teams, or scouting departments draft any better than any other ones. At least not beyond sheer luck and starting with better draft situations. The sample sizes are just too small to support anything like that. The Sox did well in the Epstein era by giving themselves more chances, through methods that just weren't available any more by the time Dombrowski was GM. Free agent draft pick compensation, draft spending caps, and international signing limits all changed to severely limit the ability to "buy" young talent. Dombrowski left the cupboard bare because his teams were good and he had less opportunity to add young talent as a result of that success. That's the way it's going to be from now on, with the caveat that luck is always going to make some GMs look smarter than others.
Yes, exactly. Luck is going to be huge or shrewd acquisitions when a GM smells blood in the water. I'll go back to the Chapman deal - Theo was in a unique position where he kind of had to overpay; so he sent the teams #1 ranked prospect and three other guys for two months and the postseason of Chapman, when he knew he wasn't going to be able to resign him even if he wanted to (he also kinda threw his morals under the bus there too, but that's a different conversation). So NYY was able to get a ransom for a couple months in a year they weren't going to the postseason, then resign the player in the offseason. We thought Cherington/LL made similar steal when they made the Punto deal, but none of those guys panned out and all we saw was salary relief, that BC went and pissed away on Pablo and Hanley. The Betts trade is obviously looking like it's going to work out pretty damn well even if the prospects aren't world beaters, but there's the corona to thank in part for that.

But it's a different system now with the draft - in 05/06, Theo had 9(!) first round or sandwich picks. Nine. He hit on Ellsbury, Buchholz and Lowrie; Bard, sorta, but he was supposed to be a starter and anyway obviously flamed out. So 3.5/9. The next guys he drafted that contributed to a ring were in '11, with Barnes and JBJ (if you'd like to count Swihart, knock yourself out). He whiffed on 9 first rounders in between those, in 5 years he was essentially 2.25/12. He was no savant. But the point is, he had so little to do with any of those drafts, other than give the department a direction and oversee it. Shortly after, the system got turned on its head and the advantages he exploited were gone.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,528
That's exactly it. DD will forever be remembered as the guy who traded six prospects for Miguel Cabrera and four prospects for Chris Sale. Those are fantastic acquisitions regardless of whom he gave up.

Honestly, I hope Moncada hits 60 home runs next year - there's absolutely nothing wrong with both sides getting value out of a deal, and that 2018 flag flies forever
And four prospects for Craig Kimbrel.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
52,015
And four prospects for Craig Kimbrel.
Kimbrel had an ERA+ of 184 in his three BOS seasons, 108 saves and just 92 hits allowed in 184.1 innings, and the four guys DD gave up have been quite underwhelming so far. This one looks like a major win for DD currently.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
7,710
Kimbrel had an ERA+ of 184 in his three BOS seasons, 108 saves and just 92 hits allowed in 184.1 innings, and the four guys DD gave up have been quite underwhelming so far. This one looks like a major win for DD currently.
Out of the 4 players traded, only one has had more than a cup of coffee in the majors (Margot), and over the three years he's started regularly in San Diego, he has been the 27th most productive CF by fWAR. With the way he hits, I doubt he would have been anything more than a fill-in stashed in AAA for Boston. The results aren't in on all the trades DD made, but the Sox won the Kimbrel trade by a lot.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,595
Portsmouth, NH
Out of the 4 players traded, only one has had more than a cup of coffee in the majors (Margot), and over the three years he's started regularly in San Diego, he has been the 27th most productive CF by fWAR. With the way he hits, I doubt he would have been anything more than a fill-in stashed in AAA for Boston. The results aren't in on all the trades DD made, but the Sox won the Kimbrel trade by a lot.
I think it's pretty easy to label them at this point.

Kinsler - Push
Eovaldi - Win
Kimbrel - Win
Pearce - Win
Nunez - Win
Pomeranz - Win
Thornburg - Loss
Sale - TBD, but likely a win

Am I missing any?
 

OurF'ingCity

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
4,939
New York City
I’d rate Sale as a win already, since even if Moncada (or someone else we traded away) becomes a bona ride star, that wasn’t going to happen on the timeline the Red Sox were working under. So if a “win” is “the Red Sox got what they wanted out of the trade,” Sale would be a win (very similar to the earlier Beckett/Lowell trade- Hanley went on to become a star and Anibal Sanchez turned into a very solid pitcher, but I assume virtually all Sox fans would call that trade a win for the Sox).
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
7,710
I think it's pretty easy to label them at this point.

Kinsler - Push
Eovaldi - Win
Kimbrel - Win
Pearce - Win
Nunez - Win
Pomeranz - Win
Thornburg - Loss
Sale - TBD, but likely a win

Am I missing any?
For significant ones yeah. There's others like Brad Ziegler in and Wide Miley out, but they don't really matter and I don't think we lost any of those types of trades in a significant way. Carson Smith and Roenis Elias aren't good, but neither was Miley on average.

If you stack up that list of players and look at what they traded, it's basically all of them for one good reliver (Buttery), a borderline starter in CF (Margot), a top shelf 3B (Moncada), and a guy with good starter potential (Kopech). That's pretty good.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,528
Kimbrel had an ERA+ of 184 in his three BOS seasons, 108 saves and just 92 hits allowed in 184.1 innings, and the four guys DD gave up have been quite underwhelming so far. This one looks like a major win for DD currently.
I wasn't commenting on the quality of the Kimbrel trade, just that DD followed his usual M.O. in trading a higher number of prospects than was typically seen in a deal for a closer, even a very good one.

Not sure if it was in Alex Speier's book, but I have read speculation that the Sox could have likely landed Kimbrel without throwing in Logan Allen (at least one account noted that the Padres were not expecting Dombrowski to agree to adding a fourth prospect to the deal). Maybe Allen never pans out (he's still only 23) but throwing him or any prospect into a deal just to get it done does also mean you have one less tradeable asset in your inventory for future discussions.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,625
Hingham, MA
At the time, it was pretty far under market value for Sale. I still think they did the right thing in re-signing him. When he gets back from surgery, I expect him to regain his ace form.
Yes it was under market for a pitcher of his caliber - Price got the same AAV but 2 more years - but it was super risky given how he had finished that season, the previous season, etc. Personally I'd have let him walk as a FA.
 

OurF'ingCity

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
4,939
New York City
Yes it was under market for a pitcher of his caliber - Price got the same AAV but 2 more years - but it was super risky given how he had finished that season, the previous season, etc. Personally I'd have let him walk as a FA.
The issue is less that they re-signed him and more that the re-signed him a year ahead of time when there was really no reason to. Had they simply let the 2019 season play out, they probably would still have been able to resign him last offseason if they wanted to, but with his elbow issues and overall shitty 2019 taken into account, which likely would have depressed his market value or just made the Sox decide it wasn’t worth it to re-sign him at all given the need to get under the luxury tax.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
25,625
Hingham, MA
The issue is less that they re-signed him and more that the re-signed him a year ahead of time when there was really no reason to. Had they simply let the 2019 season play out, they probably would still have been able to resign him last offseason if they wanted to, but with his elbow issues and overall shitty 2019 taken into account, which likely would have depressed his market value or just made the Sox decide it wasn’t worth it to re-sign him at all given the need to get under the luxury tax.
Correct, 100% agree. They had no need to offer it when they did.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
47,042
deep inside Guido territory
The issue is less that they re-signed him and more that the re-signed him a year ahead of time when there was really no reason to. Had they simply let the 2019 season play out, they probably would still have been able to resign him last offseason if they wanted to, but with his elbow issues and overall shitty 2019 taken into account, which likely would have depressed his market value or just made the Sox decide it wasn’t worth it to re-sign him at all given the need to get under the luxury tax.
If they had let the season play out and he had a normal Sale season, his value goes up and now you face the possibility of him leaving as well. Even if you take his $24 million off the books and have Betts/Price here, they are still over $250 million payroll so they would have been facing the same issues of having to shed payroll to get under the tax and the easiest way to do it was to dangle Betts out there with the condition of taking on Price. So in one fell swoop, they could have lost Sale, Betts, and Price in one offseason. At least you have Sale coming back in 2021.
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
33,094
At the time, it was pretty far under market value for Sale. I still think they did the right thing in re-signing him. When he gets back from surgery, I expect him to regain his ace form.
It was the absolute wrong thing, if it cost them Mookie. (Although it's probably more applicable to the Eovaldi re-signing)
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,495
Twin Cities
It did not cost them Mookie. They were way far past the LT this year if they did not re-sign Sale and kept both Mookie and Price.
We’ve previously crunched the numbers. I think they could have extended X and Sale, not re-signed Eovaldi, dumped half of Price’s contract, and traded most of JD’s and JBJ’s contracts/salaries, and still got under the LT threshold. They could have then kept and extended Mookie after this season. But they kept everyone and resigned Eovaldi in a GFIN move to repeat. So getting under the LT and extending Mookie doesn't seem to have been the top plan/priorities heading into 2019. I’m not sure we know why or whether that is actually true. The fact that ownership canned DD in season once it became clear that we weren’t making the playoffs and repeating suggests something more than just disappointment, something more like miscommunication if not worse. But it’s hard to look at the moves they made and conclude that the plan that everyone was following all along was to get under the LT this season.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I also suspect that DD and ownership were expecting at least one, if not both, of JD and Price to use their opt outs and save them the hassle of subsidizing a trade. I think if so many other owners hadn't been artificially suppressing the player market they might have.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
12,854
Maine
We’ve previously crunched the numbers. I think they could have extended X and Sale, not re-signed Eovaldi, dumped half of Price’s contract, and traded most of JD’s and JBJ’s contracts/salaries, and still got under the LT threshold. They could have then kept and extended Mookie after this season. But they kept everyone and resigned Eovaldi in a GFIN move to repeat. So getting under the LT and extending Mookie doesn't seem to have been the top plan/priorities heading into 2019. I’m not sure we know why or whether that is actually true. The fact that ownership canned DD in season once it became clear that we weren’t making the playoffs and repeating suggests something more than just disappointment, something more like miscommunication if not worse. But it’s hard to look at the moves they made and conclude that the plan that everyone was following all along was to get under the LT this season.
They could have, but that assumes that Mookie would have been interested in re-signing with a team that didn't have Eovaldi, Price, Martinez, or Bradley AND a low-rated farm system. It can be interesting to engage in all kinds of woulda/coulda/shoulda with regard to Dombrowski and the Red Sox, but let's not entirely take Mookie's agency away. It may well be that Dombrowski decided to pursue re-signing Eovaldi and extending Bogaerts and Sale after attempting to extend Betts and getting the impression that he wasn't inclined to stay at any price.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
938
Connecticut
And a pandemic that certainly increased the appeal of signing now instead of taking a large chance on free agency coming off a pandemic shortened season and league finances and a general economy which are at the very least in uncharted waters and facing recession.
 

geoflin

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
437
Melrose MA
According to ESPN

Thursday's agreement also included a surprise: Collection of the luxury tax will be suspended this year, a person familiar with the details told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because no announcement was made.
Do we know yet whether this means only collection of tax is suspended or whether this season doesn't count towards luxury tax purposes? If the latter, bad news for the Sox.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
17,898
They could have, but that assumes that Mookie would have been interested in re-signing with a team that didn't have Eovaldi, Price, Martinez, or Bradley AND a low-rated farm system. It can be interesting to engage in all kinds of woulda/coulda/shoulda with regard to Dombrowski and the Red Sox, but let's not entirely take Mookie's agency away. It may well be that Dombrowski decided to pursue re-signing Eovaldi and extending Bogaerts and Sale after attempting to extend Betts and getting the impression that he wasn't inclined to stay at any price.
Criticism of DD is all well and good, but Mookie's free agency was an incalculably large variable that made nearly any sort of longer-term planning very difficult. Not that certainty is an end in itself, but it's important.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,495
Twin Cities
They could have, but that assumes that Mookie would have been interested in re-signing with a team that didn't have Eovaldi, Price, Martinez, or Bradley AND a low-rated farm system. It can be interesting to engage in all kinds of woulda/coulda/shoulda with regard to Dombrowski and the Red Sox, but let's not entirely take Mookie's agency away. It may well be that Dombrowski decided to pursue re-signing Eovaldi and extending Bogaerts and Sale after attempting to extend Betts and getting the impression that he wasn't inclined to stay at any price.
Criticism of DD is all well and good, but Mookie's free agency was an incalculably large variable that made nearly any sort of longer-term planning very difficult. Not that certainty is an end in itself, but it's important.
Yes, to both. I’m not suggesting that such an alternate plan would have worked or necessarily happened. As I suggested elsewhere, signing long term in LA has obvious attractions/advantages for Mookie. I was just responding to the discussion of whether extending Sale forced us to trade, and/or ultimately cost us the chance to extend/re-sign Mookie. That move alone did not.

I was also noting the obvious falling out - that something went wrong between DD and ownership, bad enough that they canned him in September rather than a month later. You don’t do that if you’re simply deciding to go in a different direction. There are some missing puzzle pieces there that would provide some illumination into the decision-making on Eovaldi, Sale, X and later, Mookie and Price.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
29,979
AZ
According to ESPN



Do we know yet whether this means only collection of tax is suspended or whether this season doesn't count towards luxury tax purposes? If the latter, bad news for the Sox.
Anyone else seen anything on this? It would really suck if true and make me even more bummed about the Mookie news. If true it will help a few teams I guess but hurt one pretty significantly.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
14,111
Uh WTF:
Ken Rosenthal in the Athletic:
"The Sox will get under the luxury-tax threshold only if the current season is played to completion. Another shutdown would force teams to revert to their 2019 levels, and the Sox went above the highest threshold that season."

This is in direct opposition to what this thread title says and what most people on here have been saying about September 1.
 

OurF'ingCity

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
4,939
New York City
Speier was very clear a few weeks ago that Sept. 1 was the "reset" date, so either (a) he was just totally wrong (doubtful); (b) Rosenthal's sentence above was just sloppy wording (possible); or (c) something changed in the meantime (per some of the above posts, it's not entirely clear whether or how the expanded-playoffs agreement changed how the luxury tax gets treated beyond the fact that it won't be actually collected from teams this year).
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
14,111
Well Rosenthal's words are pretty direct, and completely opposite to what Speier said, so one of them is wrong.

I hope Rosenthal is wrong.

But my guess is that it's probably C., where Speier was correct at the time he said it, but now things have changed and if the season gets stopped in September, the Red Sox do not get re-set.